Catholic Clergy Respond to 18 Catholic Democrats
Dom Bettinelli reports that the "Confraternity for Catholic Clergy, ably led by Fr. John Trigilio, has responded to an open letter by 18 Catholic Democrats— who took issue with the Pope saying that Catholics have to acts like Catholics—with a response of their own":
Your letter of May 10th is self-incriminating. While criticizing the Pope for doing his job as supreme pastor, you yourselves betray your own duplicity as Catholic lawmakers. The supreme pastor of the universal church has jurisdiction over every Catholic Christian in the world. Canon Law makes it clear that every baptized Catholic is under the authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Hence, when the Roman Pontiff upholds and enforces the Divine Positive and the Natural Moral Laws, he is not interfering with man-made civil law, rather, he is reminding you of its subservience to the higher laws to which it must conform for the common good of all.Dom continues by noting that "the Confraternity scoffs at the Democrats’ claim that the Pope is interfering in US politics":
Pope Benedict is merely reminding Catholic Americans that their first and foremost loyalty is to God and the common good. Any and all civil laws which contradict the Divine and/or the Natural Law are invalid and have no obligation upon anyone. If that were not the case, then slavery, segregation and anti-Semitism would have to be tolerated if some legislature or court upheld laws supporting these atrocities.[More]
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Pope Talked About Church, Not State
Bishops’ Conference Responds To 18 Democrats Critical Of Pope
This Week's Rosie Award Winner: Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives
House Dems Repudiate Pope’s Abortion Remarks
Belated Rosie Award Winner for Last Week: Sen. Patrick Leahy
Democrat Response to Pope's Abortion Comments
Labels: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic Social Teaching, Culture of Death, Democrats, Dissident Catholics, Pope, Priests, Pro-Life
posted by Pro Ecclesia 1:32 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
If that were not the case, then slavery, segregation and anti-Semitism would have to be tolerated if some legislature or court upheld laws supporting these atrocities.
Does this mean that Catholic governments have a duty to jail anti-semitic writers for their anti-semitic writings despite the constitution giving them freedom of speech (and the courts supporting that freedom of speech)? Perhaps after some sort of ad hoc executive tribunal, since the judiciary cling to the positive law over the natural law (or maybe they could just find a judge who would ignore what all the higher courts say)?
If he's saying what he seems to be saying, it would create absolute anarchy in our system. If the Supreme Court can ignore the constitution, if the lower courts can ignore the Supreme Court, if the governor can ignore the courts, if the president can ignore the statutes, if the chief of staff can ignore the president, if the White House staff can ignore the president or chief of staff, if prison guards can ignore the president or governor or courts or statutes, etc. etc., then the whole system of government would come apart at the seems. To resign if one's asked to enforce what one sees as an unjust law is one thing, to ignore it is something else entirely. The more separation of powers* and checks and balances one has, the more anarchy ignoring positive laws one finds unjust creates. Really, only an absolute monarchy or equivalent, where the king or autocrat could jail (or execute) anyone who disagreed with his interpretation of the Natural Law, would be workable.
*Separation of powers is the key thing since it's much more difficult to penalize people in other branches. In the executive, which has the most practical power (which would translate into the most power period when anyone is free to ignore whatever anyone else says if they think it morally wrong) then an offending subordinate can usually be sacked. Of course if people decide that sacking someone for doing what the natural law itself is seen as violating the natural law, then Katy bar the door.
then an offending subordinate can usually be sacked
Perhaps that ought to be "can sometimes be sacked." I imagine you'd run into all sorts of problems between the governor, local officials (especially elected sheriffs, etc.) and the like.
Post a Comment
<< Home