the reproach of Christ

Voting Ethics: USCCB versus Cardinal Burke

Posted on 1 December 2010 by Ron Conte

There is a conflict between the position of the USCCB, and that of Cardinal Burke, on voting ethics.

The USCCB position:
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States

“34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf (PDF)

So the USCCB teaches the faithful that they may vote for a pro-abortion candidate, despite (not because of) that candidates position on abortion, on the basis of other morally grave issues.

A related document, the Bulletin Insert based on the above-quoted document, has a nice summary on this question:

“As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/docs/insert_2p_bw_english.pdf (PDF)

The idea that abortion is the sole issue that determines our moral voting is not the teaching of the USCCB. If one candidate is pro-abortion and the other candidate is pro-life, that one issue does not compel the Catholic voter’s choice. If a candidate is pro-abortion (abortion is intrinsically evil), this may possibly lead the voter to disqualify the candidate from receiving his vote — but the document only says ‘may’.

A contrary position is taken by Cardinal Burke:
From an interview with Cardinal Burke at http://www.catholicaction.org/

“Is it ever licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate….?”

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the right to choice of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to procure an abortion. You may in some circumstances, where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this great evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion, but believes that it should be available to everyone.”

“And I think that if most people would reflect in this way, simply in terms of the golden rule, that they would understand that, no, it can never be right, no matter what good that I’m trying to achieve by voting for a candidate who favors that good, but at the same time favors the intrinsic evil, the grave evil of abortion, I can never justify that, voting for that candidate.”

Notice that he allows that Catholics may vote for a candidate who will only limit abortion, if there is no candidate who will entirely eliminate abortion. He allows the same type of vote in his pastoral letter (41-42). But he explicitly states that one may never vote for a candidate who favors absolutely the so-called right to abortion. So if two candidate both favor absolutely the so-called right to abortion, he does not allow a vote for either candidate. Neither does he allow for the possibility — permitted as moral by the USCCB — of voting for the pro-abortion candidate, over the pro-life candidate, because of the moral weight of a range of other grave moral issues.

In his pastoral letter, Cardinal Burke at first seems to agree with the USCCB position, since he states: “In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices.” (n. 38)

But then he adds a provision which absolutely prohibits using this type of balanced judgment when the immorality is one of several intrinsically evil acts that he lists:

“But, there is no element of the common good, no morally good practice, that a candidate may promote and to which a voter may be dedicated, which could justify voting for a candidate who also endorses and supports the deliberate killing of the innocent, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, human cloning or the recognition of a same-sex relationship as legal marriage.” (n. 39)

The Catholic voter must choose which of these two teachings, that of the USCCB or that of Cardinal Burke, to follow. Each teaching is non-infallible.

My position will be stated in a later post.

Posted in ethics, voting | Comments Off

Two types of attacks against Catholic doctrine on contraception

Posted on 30 November 2010 by Ron Conte

This past Friday, Jimmy Akin continued his attack on Roman Catholic doctrine against contraception, expanding on his previous comments.

There are two types of attacks against Catholic doctrine on contraception: those from outside the Church, and those from within.

From Without

Sinful secular society, especially through the mass media, ridicules the teaching of the Church against contraception, speaking as if contraception were necessarily always moral, as if the use of contraception were a virtue or a moral obligation. And since we Catholics continually live within this society, we are continually subject to the dangers of its influence.

Some Catholics have given in to this influence. Instead of following the true teaching of Christ through His Church, they follow the false teachings of sinful secular society. Most do not even realize that they are following secular teachings. They have been immersed in secular society, living secular lives, for so long that the ideas of that society seem to them like their own ideas. As a result, they openly (or in some cases secretly) reject the teaching of the Magisterium against contraception in its entirety. They commit the grave sin of heresy. They commit the grave sin of using contraception. Many also commit the grave sin of abortion by choosing to use abortifacient contraception. They are poor lost souls on the path to Hell.

From Within

This type of attack on the teaching of the Church takes a more clever approach. Instead of saying that the teaching of the Church is wrong, some Catholics within the Church distort and misrepresent the content of Roman Catholic teaching. (I am not here referring to minor disagreements among the faithful as to the exact interpretation or application of a particular teaching.) This type of attack presents itself as either a sound theological opinion, or as a factual expression of magisterial teaching, yet it is nothing other than a type of calumny against the Magisterium, which in effect accuses the Magisterium of teaching falsehoods, but also claims that those falsehoods are truth. Their approach is sometimes subtle, sometimes scholarly, often gravely harmful.

Does the Magisterium teach that contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral? Yes, but certain false teachers within the Church continue to use various clever or not-so-clever arguments to thoroughly misrepresent the teaching of the Magisterium on contraception. They distort, misinterpret, misquote, and re-work the teaching of the Church until it is remade in their own image. In truth, the teaching of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium is a reflection of the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ, our Lord and God. But these false teachers chip and hack away at the teachings of the Church until it becomes a reflection of their own sinful lives.

Christ spoke against those who teach even relatively minor doctrinal errors to His sheep.

[Matthew]
{5:17} Do not think that I have come to loosen the law or the prophets. I have not come to loosen, but to fulfill.
{5:18} Amen I say to you, certainly, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot shall pass away from the law, until all is done.
{5:19} Therefore, whoever will have loosened one of the least of these commandments, and have taught men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever will have done and taught these, such a one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

But he spoke much more strongly against those persons who, on the pretext of teaching truth through religion, instead teach grave doctrinal errors to the followers of Christ.

{23:15} Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and by land, in order to make one convert. And when he has been converted, you make him twice the son of Hell that you are yourselves.

{23:24} You blind guides, straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel!

{23:27} Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed sepulchers, which outwardly appear brilliant to men, yet truly, inside, they are filled with the bones of the dead and with all filth.
{23:28} So also, you certainly appear to men outwardly to be just. But inwardly you are filled with hypocrisy and iniquity.

{23:33} You serpents, you brood of vipers! How will you escape from the judgment of Hell?

The Pharisees perverted the teachings of the Faith. They misinterpreted, distorted, and re-imagined the teachings of God in Sacred Scripture, to the effect of leading many faithful souls away from important truths on matters of faith and morals, and into grave doctrinal error.

Jimmy Akin does the same.

In one post, Akin claims that the Church has no teaching on the morality or immorality of contraception outside of marriage; he claims that contraception might be moral outside of marriage.

In another post, he even claims that contraception within marriage is not always immoral, but might be justified if contraception is not intended, or in certain situations.

This set of claims by Akin have the effect of nullifying the teaching of the Magisterium against contraception. The Magisterium teaches that contraception is intrinsically illicit, and that no circumstance and no purpose can cause an intrinsically illicit act to become moral.

Yet Akin tells his readers that they should consider that the Church’s teaching against contraception may or may not apply outside of marriage. If that teaching does apply to sexual acts outside of marriage would it mean that contraception is immoral outside of marriage, as well as within? Not according to Akin. For he states that contraception even within marriage might be justified by intention or circumstances. This implies that, even if the teaching of the Magisterium against contraception applies outside of marriage, the use of contraception outside of marriage might nevertheless be justified by intention or circumstances.

The result of Akin’s set of claims is that the use of contraception becomes only certainly immoral when used within marriage with a contraceptive intention. But natural family planning (NFP) is also immoral if used with a contraceptive intention. Akin does not seem to realize that his position on contraception makes contraception appear essentially no different than NFP. For he treats contraception as if its morality depends only on intention and circumstances. NFP is not intrinsically evil, and so the morality of NFP depends on having a good intention (not a contraceptive intention) and good circumstances (so that the reasonably anticipated good consequences outweigh any reasonably anticipated bad consequences). But, in Akin’s position on contraception, there is no fundamental moral distinction between contraception and natural family planning.

And it gets worse. By justifying contraception in some cases, Akin in effect denies that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. The Magisterium teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. Akin claims that contraception may sometimes be moral, thereby implying that intrinsically evil acts are sometimes moral. This suggests the further grave moral error that other intrinsically evil acts might also be moral in some cases. Other acts that are intrinsically evil include: murder, abortion, euthanasia, genocide, slavery, rape, adultery, fornication, perjury, robbery, theft, calumny, blasphemy, etc.

As I’ve said before, Akin’s belief and teaching on the subject of contraception is heresy. Many Catholics consider Akin to be a faithful Catholic apologist, as I used to think also. But after reading his severe doctrinal errors on salvation and then on contraception — presented to the faithful as if these were either Church teaching or at least compatible with Church teaching — I’ve changed my mind.

The heretical and schismatic teachings of Jimmy Akin

Posted in heresies, theology of the body | Comments Off

new article: contraception and heresy part 1

Posted on 29 November 2010 by Ron Conte

Pope Benedict XVI’s recent brief comments on condoms, excerpted from a book-length interview by a journalist, did not change the teaching of the Magisterium on contraception. However, the avalanche of misinformation in the secular news media about those comments did prompt public statements and discussion from many members of the Church. And what we learned was that many Catholics, even some priests and theologians, hold heretical beliefs on contraception.

Unfortunately, certain heresies pertaining to contraception are thriving among Catholics today. Each of these heresies denies, in one aspect or another, the definitive moral teaching of the Magisterium on contraception. This article will review and refute each of those heresies on contraception.

Continue to the article

Posted in ethics, heresies, theology of the body | Comments Off

Jimmy Akin’s heresy on contraception

Posted on 23 November 2010 by Ron Conte

I’ve now completed and posted a new article on moral theology, refuting certain heretical errors on the topic of contraception:

Modern Heresies on Contraception
A refutation of Jimmy Akin’s heretical errors on contraception and marriage
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/heresy-on-contraception.htm

Although many persons hold to these particular heretical errors, Jimmy Akin is prominent among those who not only hold, but also teach and promote these heresies.

The Fifth Column blog has some good insights into this topic. However, I disagree with the assertion that contraception makes natural sexual relations within marriage entirely non-marital. The Fathers who spoke in this manner, such as Augustine and Aquinas, did say that grave sexual sins within marriage are akin to adultery — but not literally so.

The good moral object of any moral sexual act is threefold: marital, unitive, procreative. The deprivation of any one of those aspects harms the other two. For example, when a married couple use contraception, it harms the other two meanings. However, it does not entirely deprive the sexual act of the other two meanings — that would imply that married couples who use contraception are not engaging in a marital or unitive act at all.

Certainly, HV does not take the point of view that contraception entirely deprives the sexual act of its marital and unitive meanings. That is why Paul VI in HV talked about the separation of the unitive and procreative meanings — because the unitive meaning is still present (though harmed). And that is why HV referrred to contracepted marital acts as marital acts — because the marital meaning is still present (though harmed).

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator

Posted in ethics, heresies, theology of the body | Comments Off

Pope Benedict’s comment on condoms

Posted on 20 November 2010 by Ron Conte

See this article: www.timesofmalta.com

Pope Benedict’s book of private theology was quoted by the media as saying: “In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”

“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes…. But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”

The news media are presenting these comments as if they represent an approval of the Church for the use of contraception, or the use of condoms, in some cases. This claim is a gross misrepresentation of what the Pope said.

The Pope was merely pointing out that a particular intention, to avoid disease transmission, is a good intention. He hopes that such a good intention might lead the person to a better understanding of morality and a turning away from immoral acts. He was not approving of contraception, nor was he approving of the use of condoms by homosexuals (i.e. cases where the condoms are not contraceptive).

The Pope’s comments do not imply that the intrinsically evil act of contraception might be moral with a good intention, such as to avoid disease transmission.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Posted in ethics, theology of the body | Comments Off

New edition of secrets book

Posted on 19 November 2010 by Ron Conte

I’ve now published the new third edition of
The Secrets of Medjugorje and Garabandal Revealed

It is available at Amazon.com and CreateSpace.com

Posted in eschatology, theology | Comments Off

Did Jesus approve of gay marriage? Not at all.

Posted on 9 November 2010 by Ron Conte

I keep seeing stories in the mass media where various persons, Christians and Christian leaders, claim that Jesus would not have been against same-sex marriage. Let’s see what our Lord and Savior actually said.

[Mark]
{7:20} “But,” he said “the things which go out from a man, these pollute a man.
{7:21} For from within, from the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
{7:22} thefts, avarice, wickedness, deceitfulness, homosexuality, an evil eye, blasphemy, self-exaltation, foolishness.
{7:23} All these evils procede from within and pollute a man.”

The Latin text, translated as homosexuality, is impudicitiae, which can refer to shameful sexual acts in general, but is often used to refer specifically to homosexuality.
http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?impudicitiae
Since this passage already condemns adultery and fornication, the specific meaning of homosexuality is indicated.

Notice that Jesus condemns two different types of evil in this passage: morally evil acts, and the tendencies that lead to such acts. Evil thoughts, adultery, fornication, murder, theft, as well as blasphemy, are specific immoral acts. But avarice, wickedness, deceitfulness, homosexuality, an evil eye, self-exaltation, and foolishness can be understood as referring both to a sinful tendency and to the particular sins that result from that tendency. Thus, lies result from deceitfulness, theft results from greed (avarice), grave sins result from wickedness (a complete disregard for morality), particular sexual sins result from homosexuality, etc.

The Greek word used for homosexuality above is ‘aselgeia’. Some translations have this as ‘sensuality’, but that word is much too general and too weak. The term ‘aselgeia’ is a very strong word, often translated as ‘filth’ (in the context of sexuality) or as ‘debauchery’. It is a very strong word referring to gravely disordered sexual acts, not mere sensuality. But in many contexts it refers specifically to the grave disorder of homosexual acts.

The same word in Greek and in Latin is used in Galatians
{5:19} Now the works of the flesh are manifest; they are: fornication, lust, homosexuality, self-indulgence,

Notice that the general terms fornication and lust are already named, so the third term cannot mean sexual immorality in general. It must mean specifically homosexuality. By comparison, in Ephesians the term is used generally:

{4:19} Qui desperantes, semetipsos tradiderunt impudicitiæ, in operationem immunditiæ omnis in avaritiam.
{4:19} Such as these, despairing, have given themselves over to sexual immorality, carrying out every impurity with rapacity.

The word ‘impudicitiae’ can refer generally to severe sexual immorality, or it can refer more specifically to homosexuality. In passages such as this one, where it is the only word referring to sexual immorality, it is understood generally to refer to every type of grave sexual impurity. But in passages where a series of specific sexual sins are named (adultery, fornication, etc.), this word is to be understood more specifically.

That the term in Greek does refer to homosexuality in Scripture is proven by 2 Peter

{2:7} And he rescued a just man, Lot, who was oppressed by the unjust and lewd behavior of the wicked.

Lot was rescued from Sodom, from the lewd behavior of a group of homosexuals.

Furthermore, on the nature of Marriage, Jesus taught:

[Mt]
{19:3} And the Pharisees approached him, testing him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to separate from his wife, no matter what the cause?”
{19:4} And he said to them in response, “Have you not read that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female?” And he said:
{19:5} “For this reason, a man shall separate from father and mother, and he shall cling to his wife, and these two shall become one flesh.
{19:6} And so, now they are not two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.”
{19:7} They said to him, “Then why did Moses command him to give a bill of divorce, and to separate?”
{19:8} He said to them: “Although Moses permitted you to separate from your wives, due to the hardness of your heart, it was not that way from the beginning.
{19:9} And I say to you, that whoever will have separated from his wife, except because of fornication, and who will have married another, commits adultery, and whoever will have married her who has been separated, commits adultery.”
{19:10} His disciples said to him, “If such is the case for a man with a wife, then it is not expedient to marry.”
{19:11} And he said to them: “Not everyone is able to grasp this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
{19:12} For there are chaste persons who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are chaste persons who have been made so by men, and there are chaste persons who have made themselves chaste for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever is able to grasp this, let him grasp it.”

[Mk]
{10:6} But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.
{10:7} Because of this, a man shall leave behind his father and mother, and he shall cling to his wife.
{10:8} And these two shall be one in flesh. And so, they are now, not two, but one flesh.
{10:9} Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Jesus taught that marriage is between one man and one woman and that this was God’s plan from the beginning of the creation of humanity. He allows for no other arrangement, such as same-sex unions.

And so, by saying “what God has joined together, let no man separate”, Jesus implies that other types of so-called marriage or unions are contrary to the will of God. He states that God has joined man and woman in marriage, and He implies that any human intervention that would disturb or contradict this plan, such as divorce and remarriage, or living together outside of marriage, or same-sex unions, is forbidden by God. For such acts are a type of ‘separation’ of man and woman from one another and from God’s plan for marriage.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator

Articles on Catholic Ethics
My work with Sacred Scripture

Posted in ethics, Scripture, theology of the body | Comments Off

Marriage Definition Controversy in Minnesota

Posted on 7 November 2010 by Ron Conte

The following videos were taken from the DVD distributed to Catholics in Minnesota. Marriage has been based on the union of one man and one woman since the beginning of the human race. Without this type of union, the human race would not have survived to the present time. Christianity has always taught that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Even before Christ arrived, Judaism held that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

The teaching of the Old Testament unequivocally condemns homosexual acts as grave sins. Jesus Christ was not unaware of this grave disorder and its grave sins. At no time did He approve of same-sex unions or homosexual acts. His teachings on chastity and marriage are incompatible with such a view. So it is absurd to claim that Christ would be in favor of same-sex marriage, or that opposition to same-sex marriage is unique to the Catholic Christian Faith. None of the Protestant reformers favored same-sex marriage, (or abortion, or contraception for that matter). The acceptance of various grave sins by some Protestant leaders is a recent modern contrivance, due to the influence of sinful secular society.

These videos discuss the harm that will occur to families, children, and society if culture and law accept same-sex marriage.

Archbishop John Nienstedt — One Man, One Woman: Preserving Marriage in Minnesota

Knights of Columbus — One Man, One Woman: Marriage and the Common Good

[Mark]
{7:20} “But,” he said “the things which go out from a man, these pollute a man.
{7:21} For from within, from the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
{7:22} thefts, avarice, wickedness, deceitfulness, homosexuality, an evil eye, blasphemy, self-exaltation, foolishness.
{7:23} All these evils procede from within and pollute a man.”

[Romans]
{1:26} Because of this, God handed them over to shameful passions. For example, their females have exchanged the natural use of the body for a use which is against nature.
{1:27} And similarly, the males also, abandoning the natural use of females, have burned in their desires for one another: males doing with males what is disgraceful, and receiving within themselves the recompense that necessarily results from their error.

[Galatians]
{5:19} Now the works of the flesh are manifest; they are: fornication, lust, homosexuality, self-indulgence,
{5:20} the serving of idols, drug use, hostility, contentiousness, jealousy, wrath, quarrels, dissensions, divisions,
{5:21} envy, murder, inebriation, carousing, and similar things. About these things, I continue to preach to you, as I have preached to you: that those who act in this way shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Posted in theology of the body | Comments Off

A Review of Roman Catholic Voting Ethics

Posted on 6 November 2010 by Ron Conte

There are three fonts (sources) of morality: (1) intention, (2) moral object, (3) consequences.
The Catholic Church teaches that any knowingly chosen act is moral if all three fonts of morality are good, and that any knowingly chosen act is immoral if any one or more fonts is bad. This teaching is found in the Catechism, the Compendium of the Catechism, the USCCB Catechism, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, as well as in other sources.

1. Intention — Any act is immoral if it is knowingly chosen with a morally-bad intention. An intention is immoral if, in either the intended end or the intended means, it is contrary to the commandments to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Voting for a candidate with the intention of legalizing direct abortion, protecting or of broadening existing laws permitting direct abortion, or with any similar intention, is an immoral act under the first font of morality.

2. Moral object — Any act is intrinsically evil when the act, by its very nature, is inherently ordered toward an evil moral object. The moral object of an act is the end, in terms of morality, toward which that act is intrinsically directed. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

Abortion is intrinsically evil; the act of abortion is inherently ordered toward an evil moral object, specifically the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human person. But voting for a person is not an intrinsically evil act. The act of voting is not inherently directed toward any particular evil law or any particular evil end. The act of voting is directed toward the end of installing particular human persons in offices of public trust.

The fact that a particular candidate favors the legalization of direct abortion, to one extent or another, does not cause voting for that person to be intrinsically evil. The vote does not have the direct effect of causing or authorizing abortions. The moral object of any act is directly related to the nature of the act itself. If voting for a candidate has an effect on laws pertaining to abortion, this is a consequence in the third font of morality, not a moral object in the second font of morality. Therefore, voting for a person is not intrinsically evil.

3. Consequences — Any act is immoral if the reasonably anticipated bad consequences morally outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences.

When any act is not intrinsically evil, then its morality depends on intention and circumstances. With a good intention, a voter may morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if the reasonably anticipated good consequences outweigh the reasonably anticipated bad consequences of the act of voting. The reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences include the likely effect of the vote on the lives of all persons affected by the vote on all issues in question, including health care, abortion, war, poverty, etc. Any voter may morally vote, with good intention, for whichever candidate will likely do the most good and the least harm.

Posted in ethics | Comments Off

Jimmy Akin’s heresy on salvation

Posted on 27 October 2010 by Ron Conte

In this article:
Catholic Soteriology versus Semi-Calvinism

I refute Jimmy Akin’s doctrinal errors on predestination, grace, salvation. How serious are these errors? In my opinion, these errors are material heresy, since they contradict fundamental definitive teachings of the Magisterium on important matters of faith and salvation.

Akin is a former Calvinist, who converted to Catholicism. But his views on salvation, grace, freewill, and predestination have retained substantial errors found in Calvinism. Although Akin tries to reconcile the Calvinist view with Catholic teaching, the result is semi-Calvinism and serious doctrinal error, not sound Catholic soteriology.

Posted in heresies, salvation | Comments Off

Intrinsic evil in the Bible

Posted on 23 October 2010 by Ron Conte

Sacred Scripture teaches that certain types of acts are always immoral; these acts are immoral because of the nature of the act itself, without regard for intention or circumstances.

[1 Cor]
{6:9} Do you not know that the iniquitous will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not choose to wander astray. For neither fornicators, nor servants of idolatry, nor adulterers,
{6:10} nor the effeminate, nor males who sleep with males, nor thieves, nor the avaricious, nor the inebriated, nor slanderers, nor the rapacious shall possess the kingdom of God.

The universal Magisterium teaches that we may never choose certain types of acts prohibited by negative precepts. And Jesus himself taught the same:

[Mt]
{19:16} And behold, someone approached and said to him, “Good Teacher, what good should I do, so that I may have eternal life?”
{19:17} And he said to him: “Why do you question me about what is good? One is good: God. But if you wish to enter into life, observe the commandments.”
{19:18} He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said: “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony.

There are no exceptions for good intentions or dire circumstances.

Certain types of sexual acts are also intrinsically and seriously disordered, and therefore always immoral regardless of intention or circumstances. Intrinsically evil sexual acts include:

lust (Mt 5:28)
masturbation (Mt 5:30; Sirach 23:25)
adultery (Deut 5:18)
non-marital sexual acts (Deut 22:20-21)
non-procreative or non-unitive sexual acts (Gen 38:10; 19:7; Lev 18:22; Romans 1:26-27)
incest (Lev 18:6 ff)
rape (Deut 22:25:27)

Any sexual act that is non-marital or non-procreative or non-unitive is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

Posted in Scripture, theology of the body | Comments Off

What is Sacred?

Posted on 23 October 2010 by Ron Conte

God alone is sacred in the fullest sense of the word.

Everything else that is called sacred is sacred to a lesser extent, and then only by close association with God.

Is human life sacred? Not in the fullest sense of the word. One human person might morally kill another human person, in self-defense or in defense of others. Even innocent human life is not sacred in the fullest sense of the word. However, innocent human life is sacred in a certain sense, because we are each and all made in the image of God.

Do women differ from men in terms of the sacredness of human life? Certainly not. Eve was made from the side of Adam, from his flesh and bone, indicating that men and women have the same nature. Adam was made from the dust of the earth, indicating that men and women are created by God — we are not gods who can decide what is good and what is evil based on our own desires. Adam and Eve both fell from grace.

There is a certain tendency in modern Catholic theology to exalt women above men in various ways. But Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Magisterium contain no basis for such an exaltation. Men and women are equal as concerns their nature, and they have different roles in the Church, the family, and society as concerns the will of God. The only basis for exalting women above men is the false teachings of sinful secular society.

Posted in theology of the body | Comments Off

Meta