Tags
1968, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Bruno Forte, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Catholic Church, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Kirchensteuer, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, spirit of Vatican II, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, Synod of Bishops 2015, Team Bergoglio, Tradition, US Bishops' Conference, Vatican, Vatican II
A very dear friend of this blog sent me a message from the Voice of the Family Life conference in Rome. (see here – in comment box) I am reproducing the comment in its entirety and …
FOR THE RECORD
This is off topic, but thought you might like some news from Rome. I attended the Voice of the Family Rome Life conference today which was addressed by Cardinal Pell and which Cardinal Burke also attended.
In the Q&A session after his talk Cardinal Pell was asked whether he agreed with Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s assessment that the Extraordinary Synod on the Family represented the 4th greatest crisis in the Church (the last one being the Reformation). His reply was that not all these great crises can bear direct comparison..”after all the Catholic Church and Luther both agreed that Christ was central to the questions, even if they disagreed on the answers. The difference today is that one side of the dispute doesn’t believe in God. On the one hand you have people who believe that you start by preaching the Gospel, on the other you have people who believe that you should adapt to the world.”
It will be interesting to see if that makes any headlines, because the implications of his words are quite damning. He is adamant that the Kasperites will not get what they want at the Synod and that nothing will change in either doctrine or practice. I hope he is right, but not so sure I share his confidence.
Can’t wait to get back to the coolth of England. God bless.
UPDATE: Sunday 10 May 2015 1:16
This blog has been graced by a comment from Hilary White with respect to the above subject matter. I am re-posting Hilary’s comment below in its entirety and FOR THE RECORD. I am also linking to the From Rome blog, where the information above was used in a subsequent post titled: Cardinal Pell says that “Team Bergoglio” are atheists (see here). Below is Hilary’s comment:
Here is the comment I posted on the other page of this blog:
I asked Cardinal Pell that question at the conference but at the time, I and others there did not think that his response was pertaining to the crisis of the Synod particularly.
It was not clear that Cardinal Pell was familiar with Bishop Schneider’s comment, or its precise context of concerns over the Synod and the apparent split in the upper levels of the hierarchy over the vexed questions at the Synod, though judging from the reaction to the question by the conference attendees, the implications were well taken, and there seemed to be general familiarity with Bishop Schneider’s observation. Nearly everyone in attendance at that conference yesterday was gravely and particularly concerned about the Synod and its possible outcome, but since the Cardinal had not attended the rest of the conference sessions he was perhaps not aware of our very focused attention on the Synod.
No one at the time thought that his response to my question meant what you have indicated above. If he had intended to imply that “Team Bergoglio” were “atheists” I don’t think it would have been an implication or a nuance that anyone there, many of whom were seasoned Vatican journalists, would have missed. Instead, his comments with regard to the crisis inside the Church were circumspect to the point of being somewhat uninteresting. Certainly none of the experienced journalists, whose news antennae were especially sharply tuned-in that day, perked up our ears.
He started by saying that the various major crisis of the Church’s history were all different. There is no indication that his distinction between “godlessness and the godly” was aimed at the Church’s interior crisis in general or at the Synod.
Here is his full quote from LifeSiteNews.com’s recording:
“For example, the crisis is quite different from the Protestant crisis, because both sides of the Protestant crisis agreed on the importance of Christ and God. The greater contingent today is between Godlessness and the Godly. And I think within the Christian communities the fundamental tension is between those who believe that growth comes from starting with Gospel teaching, and those who believe that growth comes from adaptation [with] [unclear in the recording] the world. And I think the second option leads to death. No comparison fits exactly, probably the situation is more stark in countries that have been ruled by communism, Nazism for a long time. But there’s no doubt that we have a challenge on our hands.”
Hilary White
for LifeSiteNews.com
Rome
On an aside, the following comes to mind: “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God!”
UPDATE #2: Monday 11 May 2015 02:08
It appears that this blog has been doubly privaleged this weekend. First it received a follow-up responce from the excellant Rome journalist Hilary White, and now this blog has received a responce from Br. Alexis Bugnolo of the From Rome blog. Below is the responce to Hilary White’s follow-up and FOR THE RECORD:
Dear Hilary J White.
Your disagreement with the byline and introduction to our article, seems not to be based on what the Cardinal said, but on its signification. You seem to want to take it out of the historical context of the present moment or the Synod; you also seem to want that the Cardinal knows nothing of what has transpired in the Church or in the Vatican since March 2013. If your hypothesis were true, your argument would be sound; but you cannot fabricate a historical context which does not exist, so your argument is simply an elaborate sophism, or false argument (cf. Aristotle’s, Elenchae).
The truth is, that if those proposing adaptation with the world at all costs, are the ones who are proposing the Kasper thesis; and the ones proposing the Kasper thesis (Cardinal Kasper) are “Team Bergoglio” members or players, then Team Bergoglio are atheists, in the Greek sense of the word (atheoi = without God).
So, we have employed the accepted logical rules of inference from Aristotle and concluded that the Cardinal implies that Team Bergoglio are atheists. We could have said he is implying that Bergoglio is an atheist. It does not really matter what he was thinking at the moment; the truth of what he said is a fact, which with other truths, as we have documented at the From Rome blog, lead to the inextricable conclusion which we have summarized in the introduction to our reblogged post, Team Bergoglio is a heretical conspiracy to overthrow the Church of Christ.
Even Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor in a recent interview in a British Newspaper admitted that they Cardinals involved met in Switzerland to plan the election of Bergoglio so as to arrive at the change they wanted. Perhaps there are some polly-annas who believe they want the restoration of Trent or Vatican I, but at From Rome we only print facts and realistic inferences, not imaginary tales.
From the point of view of The Deus Ex Machina Blog, the nice part of being a Catholic is that one is not afraid of the Truth. To be more specific, we worship Him!
UPDATE #3: Monday 11 May 2015 14:02
Below is the reply from Deacon Augustine, the original source for this post to Hilary White which I am posting FOR THE RECORD:
Hilary, I am grateful to you for providing the transcript of Cardinal Pell’s actual words. It gives us sure and certain material to work with rather than the original report I gave to s.armiticus which was based on my long-hand scribbling and dull memory.
However, on the interpretation of those words, I think Br Alexis Bugnolo makes very valid points which would be in line with the impression I received on the day. Your question to the Cardinal clearly framed the context by reference to Bishop Schneider’s statements regarding internal crises within the Church. Cardinal Pell is an intelligent, sharp-witted and insightful man whom I hold in the highest regard, and I think it unlikely that he would be ignorant of the thrust of your question – especially set, as it was, in the context of conference called to discuss the Synod on the family.
Replying that the key to the current crisis amounted to a struggle between godlessness and the godly, it seems only logical to ask which parties are represented by the above descriptors within the Catholic community. I hardly think that he had in mind those who defend the traditional doctrine and practice of the Church when he used the term “godlessness.” I may be mistaken of course, and he could have been referring to Cardinal Burke who was sitting in front of him, the African and Polish bishops etc.
The fact that he further set his reply in the context of “Christian communities” generally, while it might afford plausible deniability, it cannot detract from the fact that there is one very obvious party or “lobby” which wants to see the Synod and the Church accommodate her doctrine and practices with the fallen world. As he rightly said, this would lead to death. As he further qualified his reply by indicating countries which had been ruled by communism or Nazism for a long time, it seems pretty obvious whom he had in his sights.
However, setting all of the above in the context of Cardinal Brandmuller’s recent reference to those same lobbies as “heretical”, and Cardinal Koch inferring that the Germans were accommodating to the world in the same way as they did at the time of the Nazis, Cardinal Pell’s words don’t appear particularly notable.
The Deus Ex Machina Blog 
Truly an inspiration fr many
LikeLike
Dear SA,
We found this partial interview -interesting and thought-provoking in its subject matter.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-bergoglio-pontificate-one-does-not.html
LikeLike
Yes. Mr. Robert Spaemann is good. He is perceived as a Ratzingerian.
Thks for the heads up.
S.A.
LikeLike
Dear SA,
Just put a comment up under your Deus ex Machina: Reading Francis through Antiphanes heading. It applies to ongoing material, so we thought we’d make sure you don’t miss it, by mentioning it here. Thanks.
LikeLike
Thks.
LikeLike
Dear SA,
Just spotted this–thanks to “From Rome blog–which got it from Rorate Caeli Feb. 2015 (somehow we missed it: Archbishop emeritus Jan Pawel Lenga on the Crisis in the Church:
(from an exclusive open letter obtained by Rorate Caeli–published February 2015)
Sample quotes:
“In times of the crisis of the Church God has often used for her true renewal the sacrifices, the tears and the prayers of those children and servants of the Church who in the eyes of the world and of the ecclesiastical bureaucracy were considered insignificant or were persecuted and marginalized because of their fidelity to Christ. I believe that in our difficult time this law of Christ is being realized and that the Church will renew herself thanks to the faithful inner renewal of each of us.”
__
“When we wish to remain faithful to Christ in word and deed, He Himself will find the means to transform the hearts and souls of men, and the world as well will be changed at the appropriate time.”
[His own story began with suffering…]
“I completed my priestly studies in an underground Seminary in the Soviet Union. I was ordained a priest secretly during the night by a pious bishop who himself suffered for the sake of the faith. In the first year of my priesthood I had the experience of being expelled from Tadzhikistan by the KGB.”…..
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/rorate-exclusive-open-letter-by.html#more
LikeLike
The Poles remember those time also. It was not as bad in Poland, but every seminarian feared for this life in those difficult times.
S.A.
LikeLike
Dear SA,
Two for your reference files on the upcoming BATTLES (whether acknowleged publicly or not) over the not-so hidden agenda for the 2015 synod:
1. Kasper’s latest taken on by John Vennari
and
2. Retired Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson’s book on the Synod 2015 Divorce and Homosexuality
He was [2012, plenary speaker and retreat presenter for the 7th ann. “new ways ministry” Symposium on Catholicism & Homosexuality (Baltimore, Maryland)]
–a man whose work the Australian Bishops Conference says: “casts doubt upon Catholic teaching on.. the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching.”
==========
Money quote— from those who rave about his latest work..
“Bishop Geoffrey Robinson opens us to dialogue on the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, showing that there is an urgent need for a new study from the foundations up on sexual morality in general. To do this and to respond to the crucial question of Homosexuality he opens up three questions:
1. There is no possibility of a change in the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexual acts unless and until there is first a change in its teaching on heterosexual acts;
2. There is a serious need for radical change in the Church’s teaching on heterosexual acts;
3. If and when this change occurs, it will inevitably have its effect on teaching on homosexual acts.”
http://aquinas-academy.com/2014-01-15-23-49-43/reflections-all/22-reflections-2015/343-bishop-geoffrey-robinson-s-new-book-on-the-synod-and-divorce-and-homosexuality
=========
Another Note of interest:
On 4 June 2013, together with Bishop Bill Morris and Bishop Pat Power, Robinson officially launched a worldwide petition drive-addressed to Pope Francis calling for an ecumenical council inclusive of the laity to put God’s house in order.”
It complains among many common-to-disseter things, including these, which we found of particular interest:
“The constant placing of right beliefs before right actions”
“The need for each Conference of Bishops to have the authority to compel individual bishops to follow common decisions…”
LikeLike
Yes. It is all about the “intrinsically disordered”. This entire dog and pony show called the Synod of Bishops had a HIDDEN AGENDA. And now they can’t hide it any longer.
It is the Truth that sets us free:)
Deo Gratias!
LikeLike
H J White also commented in the same manner at The From Rome blog…
I replied to her specious argumentation
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/team-bergoglio-is-a-heretical-conspiracy-to-overthrow-the-church-of-christ-2/#comment-348
LikeLike
Yes, I seen that.
I will update my post to include your reply.
On an aside, this is the beauty of being on the side of Truth. We don’t have to worry about what we present because the Truth can stand on its own.
As to whose interpretation of what card. Pell said is more accurate, all I will say is that I think both my source and Hilary White’s interpretations are more accurate than any interprestaion that Francis has come up with so far of Holy Scripture. 😉
S.A.
LikeLike
Here is the comment I posted on the other page of this blog:
I asked Cardinal Pell that question at the conference but at the time, I and others there did not think that his response was pertaining to the crisis of the Synod particularly.
It was not clear that Cardinal Pell was familiar with Bishop Schneider’s comment, or its precise context of concerns over the Synod and the apparent split in the upper levels of the hierarchy over the vexed questions at the Synod, though judging from the reaction to the question by the conference attendees, the implications were well taken, and there seemed to be general familiarity with Bishop Schneider’s observation. Nearly everyone in attendance at that conference yesterday was gravely and particularly concerned about the Synod and its possible outcome, but since the Cardinal had not attended the rest of the conference sessions he was perhaps not aware of our very focused attention on the Synod.
No one at the time thought that his response to my question meant what you have indicated above. If he had intended to imply that “Team Bergoglio” were “atheists” I don’t think it would have been an implication or a nuance that anyone there, many of whom were seasoned Vatican journalists, would have missed. Instead, his comments with regard to the crisis inside the Church were circumspect to the point of being somewhat uninteresting. Certainly none of the experienced journalists, whose news antennae were especially sharply tuned-in that day, perked up our ears.
He started by saying that the various major crisis of the Church’s history were all different. There is no indication that his distinction between “godlessness and the godly” was aimed at the Church’s interior crisis in general or at the Synod.
Here is his full quote from LifeSiteNews.com’s recording:
“For example, the crisis is quite different from the Protestant crisis, because both sides of the Protestant crisis agreed on the importance of Christ and God. The greater contingent today is between Godlessness and the Godly. And I think within the Christian communities the fundamental tension is between those who believe that growth comes from starting with Gospel teaching, and those who believe that growth comes from adaptation [with] [unclear in the recording] the world. And I think the second option leads to death. No comparison fits exactly, probably the situation is more stark in countries that have been ruled by communism, Nazism for a long time. But there’s no doubt that we have a challenge on our hands.”
Hilary White
for LifeSiteNews.com
Rome
LikeLike
Dear Hilary:
Thank you for taking the time to write a follow-up to my post. It is an honor and privilege that you made the effort. I am deeply humbled and I say this with the utmost sincerity.
I have updated my original post to include your follow-up comment and have also posted Br. Bognolo’s (From Rome) reply to your follow-up.
Once again, thank you.
Pax Christi,
S.Armaticus
LikeLike
Hilary, I am grateful to you for providing the transcript of Cardinal Pell’s actual words. It gives us sure and certain material to work with rather than the original report I gave to s.armiticus which was based on my long-hand scribbling and dull memory.
However, on the interpretation of those words, I think Br Alexis Bugnolo makes very valid points which would be in line with the impression I received on the day. Your question to the Cardinal clearly framed the context by reference to Bishop Schneider’s statements regarding internal crises within the Church. Cardinal Pell is an intelligent, sharp-witted and insightful man whom I hold in the highest regard, and I think it unlikely that he would be ignorant of the thrust of your question – especially set, as it was, in the context of conference called to discuss the Synod on the family.
Replying that the key to the current crisis amounted to a struggle between godlessness and the godly, it seems only logical to ask which parties are represented by the above descriptors within the Catholic community. I hardly think that he had in mind those who defend the traditional doctrine and practice of the Church when he used the term “godlessness.” I may be mistaken of course, and he could have been referring to Cardinal Burke who was sitting in front of him, the African and Polish bishops etc.
The fact that he further set his reply in the context of “Christian communities” generally, while it might afford plausible deniability, it cannot detract from the fact that there is one very obvious party or “lobby” which wants to see the Synod and the Church accommodate her doctrine and practices with the fallen world. As he rightly said, this would lead to death. As he further qualified his reply by indicating countries which had been ruled by communism or Nazism for a long time, it seems pretty obvious whom he had in his sights.
However, setting all of the above in the context of Cardinal Brandmuller’s recent reference to those same lobbies as “heretical”, and Cardinal Koch inferring that the Germans were accommodating to the world in the same way as they did at the time of the Nazis, Cardinal Pell’s words don’t appear particularly notable.
LikeLike
FYI I have updated the post with your response to Hilary White.
LikeLike
A couple of thoughts concerning Cardinal Pell’s talk and proper journalistic practice. For one thing, if you put something in “quotation marks” you must make every possible effort to ensure it is not a paraphrase or estimate of what a person said. If you paraphrase someone you must try to stay true to what was said even if you do not have the exact words. Thus to have a headline that says Cardinal Pell says that “Team Bergoglio” are atheists looks like a paraphrase of what the cardinal said. I would imagine if someone asked Cardinal Pell “Did you say Team Bergoglio are atheists” he would say, “I did not say that” and he would be right. He did not say that. This is putting words in his mouth.
That said, there was much in the talk that was significant but if bloggers or new media sources want to be taken seriously then learning some of the practices regarding quotations, paraphrasing will help a great deal. So will resisting innuendo, and florid practices of connecting the dots when there is no proof of a causal connection.
My story on Cardinal Pell’s talk is here:
http://catholicregister.org/faith/faith-news/item/20220-cardinal-pell-expects-october-synod-to-uphold-traditional-doctrine-on-family
This doesn’t mean one cannot express an opinion about what the Cardinal’s words might mean, or draw some conclusions, but any post must make it clear these are the author’s speculations and conclusions and not make it seem like the Cardinal is making them, too.
LikeLike
You are absolutely correct, Deborah, and I take full responsibility for the misleading use of quotation marks in the original post. My sincere apologies to everybody – not least to Cardinal Pell.
LikeLike
#Open Letter to the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Dear Mr. Holt,
I just told every member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the United States House of Representatives about my request to explain to you in person why the American Journal of Physics should retract a malicious and absurd article titled, “Entropy and evolution.” I have been writing about entropy and evolution since May 1, 2010, when I reviewed a book by Richard Dawkins that criticizes certain Christians for saying evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law of nature, the entropy of an isolated liquid, solid, or gas always increases or remains constant. All of my correspondence with scientists, government officials, and private organizations is at http://www.pseudoscience123.com.
The mission statement of the AAAS promises to, “Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use.” On October 18, 2002, the AAAS stated, “The lack of scientific warrant for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as a part of science education.” The AAAS should be against all pseudoscience, not just pseudoscience disseminated to promote religious faith.
On a personal level, we both have a Ph.D. in physics from New York University, and I buttonholed you about this matter on April 24, 2014. Also, I corresponded by email with Robert Richardson, who is a professor of physics at New York University. I wrote a letter to the President of New York University criticizing the behavior of Dr. Richardson and the character of the chair of the physics department. If you have the integrity or courage to meet with me, this is what I will explain to you:
##Arguments for God’s Existence
There are two logically sound arguments for God’s existence. The first is called the cosmological argument and the second is based on the objectivity of moral laws. The cosmological argument has nothing to do with the Big Bang, fine-tuning of physical constants, or the complexity of a living organism. It is based, rather, on the observation that human beings have free will. This means humans are finite beings and finite beings need a cause. If all beings needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, there exists an infinite being. In Western religions, we call the infinite being God.
In one of the Eastern religions, God is called Dao, which means “the way.” This brings us to the second argument. If one person likes chocolate and another likes vanilla, you can’t say one is right and the other is wrong. They simply have different values. Suppose one person likes to torture and kill people. If you say such a person is wrong, you are implying that there exists a transcendent reality that makes that person’s values wrong.
It is perfectly reasonable to say these arguments are not persuasive and that we don’t know whether or not God exists. However, atheists and agnostics generally don’t say and think this. What they say and think is, “We don’t know whether or not God exists.” They leave out references to the arguments either consciously or unconsciously because thinking about God causes anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety. Atheists and agnostics, I am suggesting, are inhibited from behaving reasonably, intelligently, and honestly about anything related to God’s existence.
##The Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is that microscopic organisms evolved into whales over a period of about 100 million decades. I’m using decades as units instead of years or seconds because it takes 20 years for a single fertilized egg to produce all of the cells in a human body. You get a better insight into how rapidly evolution is supposed to have occurred by measuring the time in decades.
I am also emphasizing that the theory of evolution is indeed a theory because many people feel very strongly that it is some kind of fact. The most ridiculous thing these people say is that the term theory has a different meaning in science than it has in day-to-day life.
We see the fossils of animals that don’t exist and ask where they came from. The answer or theory is biological evolution. Another example of a question and answer is: What is free will? One theory, popular among atheists and agnostics, is that free will is an illusion. There is a lot of evidence for evolution, but there is very little evidence free will is an illusion.
##The Theory of Intelligent Design
Fact or theory, evolution raises the question of what caused it. In the middle of the 18th century, Pierre Louis Maupertuis invented the theory of natural selection. Around 1800, Jean Baptiste Lamarck invented what is now called epigenetics. My understanding is that Charles Darwin contributed nothing to evolutionary biology. Other theories are natural genetic engineering and facilitated variation. These theories only explain the adaptation of species to the environment. They do not explain common descent. The only theory that even attempts to explain common descent is the theory of intelligent design (ID).
The trouble with ID is that there is no evidence for it. What advocates of ID consider to be evidence is really evidence that the universe is not intelligible. Advocates of ID generally believe in God. Just as atheists and agnostics are suffering from cognitive dissonance, advocates of ID are anxious about religion and inhibited from thinking rationally and intelligently.
##Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
An example of misconduct caused by the conflict over evolution and religion can be seen from the title alone of a 27-page report written by a subcommittee of the House of Representatives in 2006: “Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.” The scientist was Richard Sternberg who was an editor of the peer-reviewed journal of the Biological Society of Washington. He published an article promoting ID, and was publicly criticized by the Biological Society of Washington. He could not be penalized because his day job was at the Smithsonian. His colleagues there did the dirty work.
What Sternberg did was certainly wrong. The article was a review of the different theories about the Cambrian explosion 54 million decades ago. The reference to ID came at the end of the article, and the peer-reviewers thought it was a harmless philosophical addendum that did not detract from the scientific value of the paper. Sternberg should have deleted this reference, or at the very least, advised his fellow editors about the article. He published the article behind the backs of his colleagues.
I experienced the same kind of animus in my email exchanges with Professor Richardson. I think he found out I was a retired high school teacher, and saw fit to tell me that I could not afford to pay for his services.
##Entropy and Evolution (Am. J. Phys., November 2008)
The introduction of this paper correctly refutes the pseudoscience that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics with the statement: “Disorder is a metaphor for entropy, not a definition.”
The author then makes the following statement, which I find unintelligible: “Although the entropy of the universe increases with time, the entropy of any part of the universe can decrease with time, so long as that decrease is compensated by an even larger increase in some other part of the universe.”
Consider what happens with energy and entropy when you place a hot block of metal in contact with a cold block of metal to create a bigger block of metal. Energy flows from the hot block to the cold block in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. The amount of energy gained is equal to the amount of energy lost, just as when you buy a gallon of gas. The gas station is compensated for its loss of the gas with the dollars paid because there is a sense in which a gallon of gas is equal to $2.50, or whatever the price is. The bigger block is not robbed of any energy.
Considering entropy instead of energy, the entropy of the cold block increases, the entropy of the hot block decreases, and the entropy of the bigger block increases. I can’t understand why anyone would say the decrease in the entropy of the hot block is compensated for by the increase in the entropy of the cold block.
There is another way of proving that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because there is an equation that describes this law. If evolution violated the second law, you could prove it by doing a calculation. The fact that no such calculation is possible proves the second law is not violated. This paper disgraces every physicist in the United States because it performs such a calculation to prove evolution does not violate the second law.
##Conclusion
According to Thomas Aquinas, the primary principle of morality is that we are responsible for our actions. Moral laws are secondary principles. Our conscience tells us whether or not circumstances justify saying things that are untrue or ending someone’s life. In my opinion, there can never be a justification for pseudoscience. We don’t need to consult our consciences because we can always follow the moral law against lying.
Also, I don’t think there is such a thing as a small sin as opposed to a big sin because God is not injured when we do something wrong. This, I think, is the meaning of the exchange between Spencer Tracy, playing an American judge in the movie “Judgment at Nuremburg,” and Burt Lancaster, playing a Nazi judge:
Burt Lancaster: All those millions of people … I never thought it would come to that.
Spencer Tracy: It came to that when you sentenced an innocent man to death.
Very truly yours,
David Roemer
LikeLike
Pingback: “Team Bergoglio” is a heretical conspiracy to overthrow the Church of Christ « From Rome
Oh, this synod is going to get ugly indeed.
LikeLike
Card. Maradiaga is already getting the neo-mods ready for a third Synod.
It looks like Francis will keep doctrine and practice unchanged w/r/t the divorced/remarried (Special annulment by the Mercy Corps) and communion (“spiritual communion” for public adulterers). The only issue now is the “intrinsically disordered”And this is where the BIG money is behind. So we need to expect a Third Synod of Bishops as per Maradiaga.
S.A.
LikeLike