http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23765.msg498793#new

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23653.msg496793#msg496793

https://catholicherald.co.uk/why-racism-is-a-heresy/?fbclid=IwAR14PewAq84KDK5QBEEu1MvJ9sQhZ2FXoeo03w9kcxIK2UVzXbhoZi0U8DM

This book is mentioned. Just to ask, do you agree with Mr. Fimister's article in the third link, that racism is a heresy and superstition, saying that to believe races differ from each other in intellectual and moral qualities because of biology is superstition? What would BTNYC think of this? Not to judge a book I have not read, but it seems from this article as if one of the co-authors is a politically correct fool at least on this issue (or something else). So I would be surprised if such a man could co-author the best book on political philosophy in decades, unless the good from the book comes from Father Crean O.P.

Which dogma does thinking Whites or Chinese or Jєωs are on average smarter than Blacks in part because of their genetic make-up deny?

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23765.msg498793#new

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23653.msg496793#msg496793

https://catholicherald.co.uk/why-racism-is-a-heresy/?fbclid=IwAR14PewAq84KDK5QBEEu1MvJ9sQhZ2FXoeo03w9kcxIK2UVzXbhoZi0U8DM

This book is mentioned. Just to ask, do you agree with Mr. Fimister's article in the third link, that racism is a heresy and superstition, saying that to believe races differ from each other in intellectual and moral qualities because of biology is superstition? What would BTNYC think of this? Not to judge a book I have not read, but it seems from this article as if one of the co-authors is a politically correct fool at least on this issue (or something else). So I would be surprised if such a man could co-author the best book on political philosophy in decades, unless the good from the book comes from Father Crean O.P.

Which dogma does thinking Whites or Chinese or Jєωs are on average smarter than Blacks in part because of their genetic make-up deny?

What, then, are we to make of Aristotle’s dictum that he who is no part of a city is either a beast or a god27; that is, as St Thomas glosses it, either bestial or else a ‘divine man’?28 Some vicious disposition may cause a person to shun company, but as with the other vices, this does not destroy the fundamental inclination of nature. Again, the Christian hermit who seeks solitude also retains this fundamental inclination: he renounces society not as if isolation were a good in itself, or a necessary concomitant of perfection, but for ascetic reasons, so that he may avoid the distractions by which the weakness of our fallen nature impedes the growth of charity. Yet he remains within the communion of saints, and he uses the solitude of a few years as an instrument to incorporate himself more firmly within that sempiternal society.

Matto, I think your assessment of Fimister as a "politically correct fool" is pretty well spot-on. And your rhetorical question at the end also cuts to the heart of his asininely gratuitous assertion that "racism is a heresy" - what dogma do "racists" deny? Heresy is as serious a charge as it gets. Where is his proof?

In lieu of proof his simply builds a strawman, affixes it to the stake and burns it as a heretic. According to him:

"Racism is the belief that the intellectual and moral qualities of human beings, and the differences in achievement and fortune between nations, result from biological descent. On this theory, some “races” are intrinsically intellectually and morally superior to others."

Well, since the charge of heresy is presumably being levelled at those to whom such a charge would actually instill fear and repentance, namely Catholics, it would behoove us to ask a crucially pertinent  question: Who, among Catholics, actually believes that some races are intrinsically morally superior to others? What self-professed Catholic claims, or has ever claimed, that the Church's moral laws apply - or ought to be applied - differently race to race due to intrinsic superiorities and inferiorities arising from particular racial categories? I think even the most self-righteous "anti-racist" crusaders around here would have to admit that no such phenomenon exists among Catholics.

As long as he's attributing technically heretical (though non-existent) beliefs to gussy up a made-up Marxist bogeyman known as "racism" into something a Catholic needs to give a toss about, he might as well do likewise for "homophobia" and "transphobia."
It's easy enough: "Homophobia and Transphobia are heretical beliefs which posit that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and transgendered persons are morally inferior in an intrinsic, and therefore immutable manner, and that any effort to evangelize to them or dissuade them from their evil lifestyles is therefore moot and all hope for their salvation is utterly and totally null." There. You heard it here first, folks. Homophobia and Transphobia are now heresies, just like Racism, no matter that no one on earth believes the things I've ascribed to them. They're superstitious heresies and you'd better examine your conscience perpetually to make sure you don't fall into these grievous errors.

This moron goes on to say:

"People do not always realise that this teaching is also rooted in metaphysics. The Church has infallibly taught that each human being has an immortal soul. This intellectual soul is the “form of the body”. This means that at the most fundamental level every human being is the same regardless of race or sex....For the Christian, nobody is defined by their physical inheritance..."

Now who's the heretic? The sexes are ontologically different, right down to the level of the soul. If not, what's this idiot's argument against ordination of women to the priesthood? "Nobody is defined by their physical inheritance." What does that nonsense even mean? What does he mean by using modernist, effeminate terminology like "defined by?" Is he a 16 year old girl with a Tumblr page? Again, as far as, say, eligibility for the priesthood goes, a man born without hands, or with severe mental retardation, certainly is "defined by (his) physical inheritance;" so is a man born without functioning reproductive organs - they're defined as unfit and ineligible for the sacraments of Holy Orders and Matrimony, respectively.

Why does he - and anti-racist egalitarians like him - place such importance on "intellectual' superiority and inferiority? What about other kinds of superiorities? Like physical superiority? Sub-Saharan Africans dominate certain sports for a reason - they clearly possess certain kinds of physical prowess which are superior to those of other races. Or would he seriously suggest that an all-Eskimo basketball team would excel in the NBA if given the chance? No, it's only when we speak of differences of intelligence that people like him get their panties in a bunch. But why?

Talk to any dog breeder. Ask them if all breeds have "essentially the same" temperament, or intelligence, or social aptitudes? Of course not. But does it therefore follow that German Shepherds are any "more or less" dogs than Irish Setters are? Again, of course not. Nor should it be with humans, to whom God bestowed talents differently and unevenly, but appropriately for the environments in which He placed them. "B-but human beings aren't dogs! They have immortal souls!" cries the anti-racist. Well, see Fimister's heresy above about human souls being sexless carbon copies which he seems to imply merely inhabit physical bodies completely indifferently, like hermit crabs in shells. Isn't it Catholic catechesis 101 that a human person the union of an immortal soul with a physical body? The soul is higher than the physical body, but that doesn't render the physical body a meaningless vessel, no matter what this neo-gnostic egghead says.

He's so fond of quoting Pope Pius XII ('cause he fought those mean ol' Nazees, ya know), why doesn't he examine what Pius XII said in his 1941 Allocution to the Roman Patiarchate and Nobility:

"The nature of this great and mysterious thing that is heredity - the passing on through a bloodline, perpetuated from generation to generation, of a rich ensemble of material and spiritual assets, the continuity of a single physical and moral type from father to son, the tradition that unites members of one same family across the centuries - the true nature of this heredity can undoubtedly be distorted by materialistic theories. But one can, and must also, consider this reality enormously important in the fullness of its human and supernatural truth.

One certainly cannot deny the existence of a material substratum in the transmission of hereditary characteristics; to be surprised at this one would have to forget the intimate union of our soul with our body, and in what great measure our most spiritual activities are themselves dependent upon our physical temperament. For this reason Christian morality never forgets to remind parents of the great responsibilities resting on their shoulders in this regard."

Hear that, Fimister, you superstitious egalitarian neo-gnostic heretic? There is an "intimate union between soul and body," and "our most spiritual activities are dependent upon our physical temperament." What are the implications of that on subjects like miscegenation, multiculturalism, racial indifferentism and all the other Jєωιѕн Marxist programs you hold so near and dear to your heart? Here's a hint: nothing you'd be happy to ponder.

This guy is another in a long line of Neocath "conservative" gatekeepers for the Novus Ordo. They give mealy-mouthed lipservice to the usual subjects for which accord with Catholic morality is, broadly speaking, permitted, just so long as the sacred cows of what John McCain lovingly called the Post-World-War-II Order are never questioned (i.e. Racism is evil; Hitler was Satan incarnate; the Jєωs are our elder Brothers; Race is a meaningless social construct; Diversity is Strength, etc.).

I bet he reads the account of the Tower of Babel and sees God as the villain of the story.