I had intended to blog against Ms Caro's opinion piece in last Saturday's Herald myself, but Mr. Meuhlenberg has saved me the effort by writing an excellent rebuttal of that piece.
An heretical comment by "MJ" at CathNews
For future reference:
The article is interesting enough but what sent a shudder down my spine is the picture of a line of priests offering solitary sacrifices. How could eucharistic theology and liturgy have once gotten to such a distubing practise and message?
Posted By: MJ, Camperdown, Sydney.
A weak, though interesting, article, since Ms Banham fails to give a definition of torture.
Blog comments by me
At Mr. Schütz's blog:
June 4, 2010 at 5:08 am
PE and Mr. Schütz, let’s continue the discussion at the bottom of the main thread.
June 4, 2010 at 5:24 am
“Natural Law … does not contain all of Revelation.”
“That Christ, or let’s back up a bit, that Jesus is the Christ, that the Christ is God, that the Christ is Saviour in the sense of forgiveness of sins allowing eternal life rather than damnation, is all in Christian Revelation, not Natural Law …”
“… and, though it contradicts neither, is undiscoverable by either Reason or Natural Law.”
“To impose the Roman Catholic Church as the state church on the basis of the “social reign of Christ” is utterly foreign to Natural Law”
False. There are two points to keep in mind here:
1. The natural law commands us to believe whatever God might deign to reveal to us.
2. The natural law commands that everyone in a society (here, we are of course dealing with civic society, the State) worship God in accordance with right reason and that everyone as a society worship God in accordance with right reason. In short, the natural law commands us to worship God both individually and collectively/corporately/socially. (In an unevangelised society, the State is the competent authority for prescribing the manner in which this corporate worship is to be performed; in the evangelised society, the Church is the competent authority.)
So when God assumes a human nature, founds His Church as the historical continuation of His Incarnation, and announces all this to us, then the State is indeed obligated, by natural law, to legislate to make this revealed religion the State religion, to make this Church the established Church, and to repress, where prudent, whoever commits offences against this religion.
Thank you for that information about the R.C.L.
June 4, 2010 at 5:25 am
“My main problem with your theology, Your Eminence – and in fact PE’s as well -, is that both of you have an insufficiently eschatological view of the reign of Christ.”
Mr. Schütz, PE and I are talking about Christ’s Kingship over nature. As I said, Christ’s Kingship is three-fold: A Kingship of nature, of grace, and of glory, and eschatology pertains to the Kingdom of glory, not the Kingdom of nature (except insofar as that the Second Coming will mean the end of the Kingdom of nature as we know it, but obviously that’s not relevant to the discussion of the Kingdom of nature as we do now know it). So to say that I am insufficiently eschatological in my perspective is unfair.
“Christ reigns over the New Creation, his Kingdom is “coming”, we await his glorious appearance (as St Paul says).”
True, true and true–but there’s that word “glorious”, which confirms what I said earlier about eschatology pertaining to the Kingdom of glory, which is not of concern here.
“All kingdoms of this world thereby have been read their eviction notices”
True, to the extent that at the end of time God will no longer rule through fathers (in the society of the family), through heads of State (in civic society), and Popes (in the society of the Church), but will, rather, rule in person (I’ve got that right, haven’t I?). But irrelevant to the extent that those eviction notices have not yet come into effect!
“No Catholic Confessional State … is synonymous with “the Social Reign of Christ”.”
True in the sense that the Social Reign of Christ involves lower-level societies too–every lawfully-constituted society has Christ as its King–but nevertheless, the Social Reign of Christ is (subjectively) incomplete without it (the Confessional State).
“Christian Revelation tells us that there are “kingdoms of this age” and the “Kingdom which is to come”.”
And the kingdoms of this age were the ones on which PE and I were focussed.
“Christ’s reing is the latter: but not in the sense that it is absent from the here and now. Wherever the reign of Christ enters into the social reality in which we now live, we can see this as an advance sign (and only a sign – it is a pointer, not the thing itself) of the Kingdom which is coming.”
But, again, the Kingdom which is coming is the Kingdom of glory, with which I have not dealt (except to mention it) in my comments to PE. I would expect that PE and I would be in agreement as to what the Kingdom of glory involves, but we disagree, of course, as to what the Kingdom of nature involves.
June 4, 2010 at 5:28 am
(Back on Monday night, Australian time.)