"Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.""But I say to you that hear: Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that calumniate you."
These were the words of Our Blessed Lord to His Apostles. Of course, these words are challenging, but the idea of a Priest taking another Priest to court over something said reproving him or rebuking him for articles written which do not reflect Church Teaching is scandalous, a total and sublimely ridiculous betrayal of the Gospel, an affront to the virtue of Humility.
Monsignor Basil Loftus is clearly a writer who has forgotten that he is a Priest!
In June, Msgr Loftus had this letter in The Tablet:I am sorry but that is a profoundly heretical letter, dissenting from Church Teaching and proposing the killing of the unborn child in cases where it is deemed to be an 'aggressor'. He can sue me too!
The three articles on the tragic case of Sister Margaret McBride's involvement in the recent abortion controversy (The Tablet, 5 June) must encourage all who have been left puzzled. And encouragement must often suffice where enlightenment cannot be had, since in the Church we see only as through a glass, darkly.
I wonder, however, if one further consideration could be explored. Has sufficient thought been given to the possible role of the foetus as an unjust aggressor? The existence of a negative reply from a Roman dicastery is not proof that it has.
Is a victim allowed to take the life of an aggressor in order to save his or her own life, even if the agressor had not formed, or had been unable to form, an aggressive intent? If so, would not a foetus whose objective aggression was threatening the mother's life, be in the same moral/legal position as an unwitting aggressor, or an aggressive child or mentally defective adult?
18 comments:
Fr Mildew has got the rant as well.
Rsttle, rattle, rattle.
Loftus is a typical Spirit of V2 bully, he can't stand anyone disagreeing with him or having a different opinion.
Arrogant sod!
Libel laws are crazy. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the case. Although I suspect he's only grandstanding.
Well done Laurence - it would appear that as Fr Ray and Fr Mildew are not the first to receive threats, they are only empty threats. However if it ever did come to court there would be queues round the block!
(Have a great day today Laurence - did Fr Ray say you were 75 or 76? You sure do wear well!!)
''I am sorry but that is a profoundly heretical letter, dissenting from Church Teaching and proposing the killing of the unborn child in cases where it is deemed to be an 'aggressor'. He can sue me too!''
No it's not, it doesn't state the opinion as fact, it simply raises the possibility for consideration. That's what theologians do, they think about things (unlike thick unthinking uber-traditionalist bloggers).
Try to remember that you are not the magisterium, and therefore not entitled to decide whether someone is a heretic or not.
Brian, no, I am not the Magisterium. The Magisterium, much like the Eternal and Ever Living God in Whom we believe, exists regardless of us and our opinions.
There is no place for moral relativism within the Bride of Christ. The Church proclaims Absolutes and one such absolute is the inviolable rights of the child to live.
We have, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an expressed set of Catholic Dogma which reveals the Truth to the Church and to the World. It is incumbent upon a Catholic Priest to uphold this, not to come to his own conclusions and lead the people of God astray.
I didn't call him an heretic, I said what he was positing is heretical, and contrary to the Faith.
There is a difference. Why are you wasting your time defending him? I'm very tempted to send his letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Who's side do you think they would take? Mine, or his?
''I didn't call him an heretic, I said what he was positing is heretical, and contrary to the Faith.''
Pure semantics, my precious dear - heretics posit heretical views contary to the faith. If you say someone holds heretical views then you are calling them a heretic. Pure and simple, period.
I'd argue that it is possible to fall into error. People can change from being heretical to not being heretical, by recognising their error by the Grace of God and through correction by others.
Question: what is the morally and medically correct course of action when the growing child in the womb threatens the mother's life? What if it is certain that, absent medical intervention which will cause the death of the child, the mother will die?
My understanding was that such medical intervention, where the death of the child is not the end of the action but a necessary consequence of the steps taken to safe the mother's life, would be morally licit, though of course the mother would be free to refuse such treatment, at the potential cost of her own life (like St Gianna Beretta Molla).
Am I right? If not, how?
Yes St John you are indeed right, although there is no nuance in the interpretation of catholic teaching by Taliban uber-Catholics.
I suppose if Fr Basil Loftus does sue you, you'll have another excuse to scrounge money from others for your legal case. It's the height of irresponsibility for you to deliberately provoke someone so they have no choice but to take action against you in order to protect their reputation. You always have to jump on the bandwagon to big yourself up.
Mothers sacrifice their lives for their children. That is motherhood.
They shouldn't sacrifice their children's lives for theirs.
That is the very antithesis of motherhood.
''Mothers sacrifice their lives for their children. That is motherhood. They shouldn't sacrifice their children's lives for theirs. That is the very antithesis of motherhood.''
That's your opinion based upon your personal beliefs but not necessarilly shared by shared teaching which is much more nuanced in the morality of this area. Indded, it's rather easy for you to have that belief as a single man with no children but actual mothers might have a different perspective or experience - motivated, for example, by the need to stay alive in order to look after their other children.
Hmmm... not sure about that last coment Lawrence. I mean, Mary didn't sacrifice her life for her child Jesus.
''Why are you wasting your time defending him? I'm very tempted to send his letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Who's side do you think they would take? Mine, or his?''
...because as Christians we must act justly with great charity. I don't think denouncing a catholic priest as a heretic is either.
'Hmmm... not sure about that last coment Lawrence. I mean, Mary didn't sacrifice her life for her child Jesus.'
Are we not her children?
When she watched Him hang upon the Cross did He not give her to us as our Mother?
Did her heart not break for the love of Him and for the love of us?
Did she not share intimately in His Passion given that her love was perfect?
she might have done all those things, but what she definately didn't do is give up her own life for him so that he could live. She let events take their course
Catholic Theologian - It is all very well for you to dismiss Laurence's argument on the basis that he is "a single man with no children", but you do not tell us anything about yourself to enable us to attribute greater validity to your view. Cheap point.
Our Lady, uniquely, was the mother of the Redeemer of all mankind; it would scarcely have been open to her to offer her own life in place of that of the One who was sent to give up his life for the salvation of all who would believe in him. The course of obedience lay in
"let[ting]events take their course".
A more analogous example would be that of St. Gianna Beretta Molla (cited earlier), who, as a wife, mother and doctor, was very clear where her duty lay.
St John - The difference, as I understand it, is this. It is morally licit to remove the Fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a diseased uterus even when the woman is pregnant; these are procedures directly aimed at saving the life of the mother, since the disease would definitely cause death if untreated, while the death of the baby is an unintended consequence. It is never licit to perform,procure or permit an abortion; a baby is not a disease.
Post a Comment