Kiwi Catholic

Moved from http://www.haloscan.com/comments/blostopher/114693062638103719/#464307

Whew! For a minute there, I thought I may have been too hasty to order the book. Now I look forward to reading it.St. Peter's Helpers Homepage 05.06.06 - 2:52 pm #

I have yet to meet anyone from Catholic Worker who wasn't basically a moonbat. The Catholic left has always seemed to me to be motivated by nothing so much as a craven need for validation by the secular left.Mike Walsh, MM 05.07.06 - 6:22 am #

Thanks Christopher for this interesting and lucid analysis.I didn't know Fr Sirico was involved in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.It's clear that the Compendium does have some positive things to say about the free market. However, it would be serously in error to think that the Compendium is in any way a unfettered endorsement of everything done in the name of the free market because it isn't and the Church has never taught that.It's quite easy to tell how solidly based in actual Papal teaching anything in the Compendium actually is by simply looking at the footnotes for each section where the original papal source documents are referenced.If no Papal teaching is referenced, then that item clearly has less doctrinal weight than one which quotes Papal teaching directly.An interesting example of this, from the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch, is CCC2309 on legitimate defense by military force, which is footnoted to no Papal or Council document whatsoever.It would be great to have the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, and the Compendium of the Catechism available online.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.07.06 - 12:40 pm #

An interesting example of this, from the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch, is CCC2309 on legitimate defense by military force, which is footnoted to no Papal or Council document whatsoever.Pope Julius II fought on the front lines himself; I think that is endorsement enough! ;)Juan Pilgrim 05.07.06 - 3:30 pm #

Juan,Would St Peters' three times denial of Christ make apostasy good ?Or would the adultery of certain Popes make adultery good ?What is a sure and reliable moral guide is what the Popes teach doctrinally, not their personal behaviour.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.07.06 - 4:28 pm #

I use to read their articles in OSV, but they just got so tiring with so many misrepresentations. Looks like nothing has changed.Jeff Miller Homepage 05.07.06 - 5:00 pm #

Re: Chris SullivanAye... I forgot some pacifists can't take jokes...Juan Pilgrim 05.07.06 - 5:42 pm #

Chris,What would you say to the argument that one cannot find a single pacifist among the Doctors of the Church?Santiago Homepage 05.07.06 - 10:51 pm #

The Catholic Worker movement is marxist, I dont care how many times they deny the marxist leanings of Day, the entire organization is based upon class envy, and stealing material goods from those who produce them, to those who do not. Their romantization and exploitation of the poor by the Catholic Worker Movement sickens me.Mark 05.08.06 - 7:48 am #

Santiago,We'll firstly I'd like to know what you mean by the word "pacifist" which covers everything from those who teach nonviolence (such as Jesus) to those who are too selfish to lift a finger in defense of anyone else.Then I'd like to know all the details of the positions of each Doctor of the Church on violence.St Thomas Aquinas, for example, believed in violence, writing in his summa that heretics deserve to be put to death. But the Church has repudiated this erroneous position.There are many saints who completely rejected violence, following in the footsteps of Christ, such as Mother Theresa of Calcutta who said that when we consider that war is the deliberate killing of human persons, how can it ever be just ?The position of the Church is quite clear that violence and war are to be rejected. egWe prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on. 29th Cannon of the 2nd Lateran Council 1139 A.D. The enormous violence of modern warfare means that it can no longer be regarded as a reasonable, proportionate means for settling conflicts. Pope Pius XIITherefore in this age of ours, which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational to think that war is a proper way to obtain justice for violated rights. Pope John XXIII's encyclical Pacem in Terris.Never again war!. No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war. Pope John Paul II in Centessimus Annus.Pope John Paul II described war as "always unjust" ("siempre injusto") in a speech on arrival at Buenos Aires airport during the Falklands war.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.08.06 - 12:18 pm #

Mark,The Catholic Worker movement is not marxist and does not advocate class envy or stealing.The teachings of Dorothy Day after she became a Catholic are entirely orthodox, although it is true that she was once a communist (something also true of many neo-conservatives).If it wasn't for the good work of the Catholic Workers, I don't think I'd be a Catholic today.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.08.06 - 12:22 pm #

"violence" is not the best word to use in regard to legitimate or a sanctioned act. Rather, what should be said is "force." Force is what is used. There is morally justified force, as when I defend someone who is unjustly being attacked. Then there is the unjustified use of force, such as when an aggressor physically violates the rights, the goods, the person of another, and this we call "violence."Just as killing is further divided into justified killing and murder, so too should force be divided into the just use of force and the unjust use (i.e, violence).W. Homepage 05.08.06 - 10:46 pm #

"It would be great to have the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, and the Compendium of the Catechism available online."The Compendium of the Catechism is already available online at the vatican website in Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. I particularly recommend the romanian version.(http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm)Joao 05.09.06 - 6:59 am #

W,I do like your definition of violence and the distinction you make between force and violence, which has much to recommend it.Although it seems to square with the dictionary defintion it does however jar with something the catechism quotes from Aquinas :-If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawfulWhich seems to imply that in St Thomas' view there is such a thing as "necessary violence", something which the The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church seems to rule out :-488. Peace and violence cannot dwell together and where there is violence, God cannot be present (cf 1 Chr 22:8-9)...496. Violence is never a proper response. With the conviction of her faith in Christ and with the awareness of her mission, the Church proclaims "that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie because it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what is claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings" JPII, Address at Drogheda, Ireland, 29Sep1979God BlessChris Sullivan 05.09.06 - 12:05 pm #

No. 334: ?The economy has as its object the development of wealth and its progressive increase...? (This is not from the Gospel or Catholic Social Teaching!)Excuse me!An economy that is not developing wealth and it?s progressive increase, is an economy where wealth is being depleted and with a progressive decrease. That may not be what the Zwick?s intend to be saying but that is what we would get, like it or not.The academic definition of Economics is something like meeting infinite demands with finite resources. If the objective of the people who manage the economy is the development of wealth and its progressive increase then there will be progressively more resources to at least meet the needs if not the all the demands of society. If the opposite is the intent there will be p[progressively less resources to meet the needs let alone all the demands.Of course a merely progressive increase in wealth does not necessarily mean that it will go to the needs, however if we read the whole paragraph from which the quote was takenThe economy has as its object the development of wealth and its progressive increase, not only in quantity but also in quality; this is morally correct if it is directed to man's overall development in solidarity and to that of the society in which people live and work. Development, in fact, cannot be reduced to a mere process of accumulating goods and services. On the contrary, accumulation by itself, even were it for the common good, is not a sufficient condition for bringing about authentic human happiness.We have solid direction not only to the increase of wealth, but insuring the increase of wealth provides for the needs of society, reducing the problems caused by the increase of wealth and insuring it serves the common good. If not a cut and paste quote from previous teaching, it is what the previous teaching is about.Hank Homepage 05.09.06 - 7:54 pm #

The Vatican has been going backwards in every respect since 1968 and it is not a surprise that its social teaching has also become murky. The salt of the Gospel is missing.Spirit of Vatican II Homepage 05.10.06 - 2:54 am #

A bishop of Cochin-China once said to the Governor of Saigon: "Ten Carmelite nuns praying will be of greater help to me that twenty missionaries preaching." Here's a bit of background on Ms. Day and her comrade Pete Maurin: Born in 1897, Day was a Communist radical during the early decades of the 1900s. After leaving college, she wrote for socialist newspapers. She first went to jail with a group of suffragists in 1917 who were demonstrating at the White House in favor of giving women voting rights. In the World War I period she was part of a circle of social radicals and literary types like Eugene O'Neill. After having had an abortion in a failed relationship when she was 22 years old, the birth of her daughter Tamar in 1927 (within a common-law marriage), brought her great joy and led her to decide to switch from Communism to Catholicism. She, along with her hero-mentor Peter Maurin, established the "Catholic Worker Movement." She maintained throughout her life that Maurin, not she, was the guiding hand behind the Movement. Peter Maurin, was a radical even among radicals. He believed what was needed was a vision of a future society. Rather than strive for better hours or higher pay for workers, Maurin said it was time "to fire the bosses." In order to publicize what he considered to be "Catholic social teaching" and to promote steps to bring about peaceful transformation of society, he proposed that Day start a newspaper. The Catholic Worker was first published on May 1, 1933. Maurin did not want the paper to be just one more group of complainers. It should push for what he called "the green revolution." A strong believer in education through dialogue, Maurin advocated "round table discussions for the clarification of thought." Friday night meetings quickly became a tradition of the Catholic Worker community. The Catholic Workers not only disagreed with capitalism, they presented an alternative economics called Distributism---which they called "a person-centered economics." Based on this concept of economics, Maurin and Day founded "communal houses/farms" where families could live and work using a "Distributist" system. Though labeled by Maurin as "agronomic universities," these farms failed miserably because everyone did not work the same. In 1938, Maurin moved to their first distributist village, Mary Farm, a ten-acre property the Catholic Worker community bought in Easton, Pennsylvania. Unfortunately most residents preferred to discuss theology or politics rather than work the fields or to repair equipment. "It seemed," Day noted, "that the more people that were around, the less got done." Small matters took on divisive significance and Maurin, alone, was left to look after basic chores. In 1944 part of the farm was sold, another part given away to another disagreeable group that regarded themselves as "the true Catholic Workers." Other "farms" were set up, but were more rural houses of hospitality than agricultural communities. After the failed "distributist villages," the Workers took on the cause of refusing to pay federal taxes. Day went to jail four times from 1955 to 1959 for acts of civil disobedience. She refused to take shelter during civil defense drills that simulated a nuclear attack on New York City. An outspoken pacifist, she was a friend to bishops and cardinals, while being critical of the Church's wealth and support for war and war preparations. A relentless agitator, Day was jailed in 1969 at the age of 76 while protesting with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers in California. During the Vietnam War she was a regular protester, spending many nights in jail. She was a strong supporter of Fidel Castro. Here are her own words regarding Fidel Castro from her column in the Catholic Worker of July-August, 1961: "Fidel Castro says he is not persecuting Christ, but Churchmen who have betrayed him. He says that he differentiates between Christ and the clergy, the Church and the clergy. He reassures the people that they can administer the sacrament of baptism themselves. That a marriage is consummated by the act of marriage and is blessed by the priest. The fact that he has to make these things clear to his people shows how deeply religious they are, that they need reassuring. He asked the clergy to remain and to teach when he took over the schools and nationalized church property. God knows he needs teachers to send out all over the island to reach the furthermost corners of it. But the reply according to our diocesan press, was that priests and nuns would not teach communism to their students And Castro in his turn taunted them with the fact that all they thought of was money and property.We are certainly not Marxist socialists nor do we believe in violent revolution. Yet we do believe that it is better to revolt, to fight, as Castro did with his handful of men, he worked in the fields with the cane workers and thus gained them to his army--than to do nothing. We are on the side of the revolution. We believe there must be new concepts of property, which is proper to man, and that the new concept is not so new. There is a Christian communism and a Christian capitalism as Peter Maurin pointed out. We believe in farming communes and cooperatives and will be happy to see how they work out in Cuba. We are in correspondence with friends in Cuba who will send us word as to what is happening in religious circles and in the schools." Day and Maurin were Marxist shills pushing the Butcher of Havana on the poor people of Cuba and encouraging a revolution to replace capitalism in the United States! Their modern day counterparts don't seem to have learned from their mistakes.Mark 05.10.06 - 7:26 am #

Let's be fair--that was written in 1961. Dorothy was still open minded enough to "see how they work out in Cuba." She was't being ideological. She also died in 1980--I wonder if anyone knows whether she revised her opinion of the Cuban tyrant.Santiago 05.10.06 - 2:50 pm #

I think (with Schindler) that there are some fairly significant problems with the Sirico-Weigel-Novak-etc. interpretation of Catholic social teaching on certain points. That said, the Zwicks' criticisms are almost always way over the top, and on my reading of the Compendium, that's the case this time as well.Kevin Miller Homepage 05.11.06 - 5:51 am #

Judging from the various attacks on individuals and organizations published in *The Houston Catholic Worker* as well as their adamant refusal to print corrections after publishing errors of fact, I think it's fair to say that the Zwicks are motivated by an almost atavistic hatred of private property. Dorothy Day, on the other hand, loved to quote that "Property is proper to man."I have a friend who was formerly an editor with the NY Catholic Worker. He left because of their growing hostility to private property, and their inability to consider alternatives to State control to achieve the restructuring of the social order.Don't get me wrong -- I believe that in our current disordered condition of society in which ownership of the means of production is increasingly concentrated, State action is needed ... as an expedient when private charity fails. Further, State action can only -- repeat, ONLY -- be justified if continuing efforts are made to remove the need for State intervention.This is the principle of double effect. Making people dependent on the State for their subsistence forces them into a condition of effective slavery, as both Leo XIII and Pius XI noted with respect to the position most workers hold to private employers. Frankly, it matters little whether you are a wage slave of a private person or a welfare slave of a State bureaucrat -- you're still a slave, as Cobbett pointed out; you lack property, ergo, you are under the absolute control of somebody else.Defining "capitalism" as concentrated private ownership or control of the means of production and "socialism" as concentrated State ownership or control of the means of production leaves us with the necessity of coming up with something else, as recommended by Leo XIII in § 46 of Rerum Novarum -- a state of society in which the great mass of people prefer to own private property.The interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice, www.cesj.org, has, I believe, developed a program to counter both capitalism and socialism as defined above, and it appears to be viable (at least I've not seen any counter arguments that didn't have the stink of automatic gainsaying). It's worth checking out. There's even a free book, Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen, available as a free download in .pdf.A. Nonymouse 05.11.06 - 7:15 am #

"Don't get me wrong -- I believe that in our current disordered condition of society in which ownership of the means of production is increasingly concentrated, State action is needed ... as an expedient when private charity fails. Further, State action can only -- repeat, ONLY -- be justified if continuing efforts are made to remove the need for State intervention."How would you propose to do this? At gunpoint? Who is going to determine the proper amount of proper to own? I have read most of the Catholic Worker Movement stuff, and they are simply Marxists with Rosarys....stay away from them.Mark 05.11.06 - 7:46 am #

What Kevin Miller said! The Zwicks' over-the-top reactions tend to cause more heat than light, so the consequent discussion almost always degenerates into a mud-wrestling contest (as seen here, folks). Mark and Louise are not perfect, but they are not Marxists either.Fred Homepage 05.11.06 - 8:03 am #

Fred,The Zwicks are not the arbiters of who can and who cannot own property!!! They are Marxists, and they use class envy and a very twisted romanticazation of the poor to push their agenda...it sickens me to no end that they see the glory of living in squalor.I happen to own my home(no mortgage) and other property...is that too much for the Zwicks, or should I sell it all and live in commune, with my wife and 5 kids? Ridiculous nonsense, you cannot take property from people, I believe there is a commandment from our Lord about that somewhere(sarcasm).Mark 05.11.06 - 8:19 am #

Mark, enjoy your mud!Fred Homepage 05.11.06 - 8:59 am #

Fred, I cherish the Truth, the Truth is not muddy.Mark 05.11.06 - 9:09 am #

"How would you propose to do this? At gunpoint? Who is going to determine the proper amount of proper to own?"I don't understand the question -- I made no statement as to the proper amount of proper(ty) to own -- simply that State action in redistribution (through taxation to fund social welfare programs) can be justified if:1. It is clearly understood as an expedient to keep people alive, and2. Social restructuring is at the same time carried out with the goal of removing the necessity of redistribution.You must, of course, first unshackle yourself from the idea that all that exists is all that can exist. New wealth is created every day. Second, you must realize that capital is formed most efficiently not by relying on existing savings (which by definition belong to the already-wealthy), but on using central banking theory and banks-of-issue as originally intended, and replacing the universal collateralization requirement with capital credit insurance.There is no way to present the whole picture in a posting in a com box, which is why I referred interested parties to the web site of the Center for Economic and Social Justice, www.cesj.org.As for the State collecting taxes at gunpoint ... if you do not agree with current levels of taxation or the uses to which tax revenues are put (including social welfare programs), use your vote. If you feel individually helpless, organize with others of like mind and so gain the necessary political power.A. Nonymouse 05.11.06 - 9:41 am #

Mark,Can you substantiate your claim that the Zwicks are Marxists or is that just a piece of mud you're happy to sling ?Marxists beleive in violent revolution. The Catholic Workers are pacifists. You can't be both for violent revolution and against violent revolution.God BlessAnonymous 05.11.06 - 12:28 pm #

Main Entry: Marx·ism Pronunciation: 'märk-"si-z&mFunction: noun: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless societyhttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marxistI am not slinging mud, I do not name call. Read any of Dorothy Day's writings in the Catholic Worker website, she denounces Marx in the same breath as she utters exactly what Marx says, all cloaked in Catholicism.Mark 05.11.06 - 12:42 pm #

Mark,Show me where the Catholic Workers advocate the "dictatorship of the proletariat", one of the essential features of your definition of Marxism.They don't. Therefore they are not Marists.None of the other features of your defintion are necessarily in conflict with Catholic teaching (although they may be if construed in certain ways, the ways Marxists construe them) viz "a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, the establishment of a classless society".God BlessChris Sullivan 05.11.06 - 1:29 pm #

I would tend to disagree that the Zwicks are pacifists. Yes, they appear to be violently opposed to *physical* violence, which in Christianity is the least harmful kind.They are, however, extremely agressive and have attacked a number of people and organizations in print and in speech. They have never, to the best of my knowledge, ever apologized for or retracted attacks that I know to be unjust and contain explicit untruths.A case in point. Last year about this time the Houston Catholic Worker published an article containing misstatements of fact about the interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice. To my knowledge, at least three attempts have been made by the president of that institution and others, including myself, to get them to correct the errors. They have not bothered to vouchsafe even an acknowledgement that they received the letters or e-mails.Their animosity toward the CESJ appears to be rooted in the fact that CESJ supports what Leo XIII called the natural and sacred right of private property. In this, they meet Marx's own definition of the essence of communism in The Communist Manifesto: the abolition of private property.A true pacifist knows that words can cause much more harm than a gun, fist or club; such things can only harm the body, not the soul. Words, however, are very effective at destroying souls and undermining truth.I disagree with much of what Father Sirico says and what the Acton Institute promotes. Father Sirico is, however, a human being, and entitled to a certain respect for his dignity as such. If you disagree with him, argue on the facts and on sound Catholic teaching, not on personal interpretations imposed on selected passages, and especially don't throw labels around that haven't even been defined or understood.I have yet to see anything coming from the Zwicks that was anything other than the assertion of a private interpretation of the Bible, the encyclicals or a papal allocution. Their positions and statements are frequently directly opposed to the natural law, and do not constitute valid arguments.A. Nonymouse 05.12.06 - 6:00 am #

Chris said "Show me where the Catholic Workers advocate the "dictatorship of the proletariat", one of the essential features of your definition of Marxism."I did, his name is Castro, the Butcher of Bagdad. Also, although I could not find the same praising language by Day toward Castro, the Catholic Worker Movement speaks positively of that murdering thug Che Guevara....in fact , Che's picture can be found in some of the Catholic Worker homes.Mark 05.12.06 - 10:50 am #

Now, this is a fascinating interview with Day, and the anarchist newsletter the "Catholic Agitator"http://www.ainfos.ca/01/jun/ ainf...infos00536.htmlHere must be a very confusing quote for the followers of Day and Maurin " A: Do you ever, as an anarchist, see anyincompatibilities between anarchy and Catholicism?DD: No, I think anarchy is natural to the Catholic.The Church is pretty anarchistic, you know. Who paysattention to the Pope or the Cardinals? Conscience issupreme, and that's why we print it on the front pageof our The Catholic Worker monthly paper. The sayingof Vatican II is above all 'Conscience is supreme'."wow.....Mark 05.12.06 - 11:00 am #

And you wonder why these poorly educated Catholic kids are wearing all of that Che clothing, please read this glowing review of Che's life in a Catholic Worker Movement newsletterhttp://www.opendoorcommunity.org...g/ HospFeb05.pdfWhy won't the Catholic Workers comment on the thousands killed by Castro and his executioner, Che?Mark 05.12.06 - 11:06 am #

With regard to the Aquinas quote (sorry it has taken some days; life is full these days), I think it is partially explained by looking at the Latin:Et ideo si aliquis ad defendendum propriam vitam utatur maiori violentia quam oporteat, erit illicitum. Si vero moderate violentiam repellat, erit licita defensio,is translated asWherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful,Nowhere is the Latin word for "force" used. Rather, what is done is contextualize the translation. "Violence" seems to be a word that could take a negative or positive use, unlike today where it is seen in Vatican documents and some philosophical writings only in the negative sense. That said, when the Vatican in days recent speaks of "violence" in the negative sense, it is not doing so in contradiction to Aquinas; only doing so in light of languages that have developed to regard "violence" quite often and almost always (to some) in the negative sense. How do we know this is the case?Because in reading more of Aquinas and staying faithful to his principles and trends, this is precisely the type of distinction he would make if confronted with the ambiguity of the above text and the issue of the moral status of "violence" as understood today.W. Homepage 05.12.06 - 10:54 pm #

Mark,Thanks for the interesting links.I think the "Who pays attention to the Pope or the Cardinals?" quote probably needs to be seen in t he context of the times when Dorothy said it in the early 1970's. Sadly, I expect it's still a pretty good summary of where most Catholics stand today.I don't think it's really fair to complain that the MotorCycle Diaries reflection doesn't adress Che's later killing in cold blood although it's important to put out the truth about Che - he's not at all the good role model some think.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.14.06 - 12:30 pm #

W.So you'd say that Aquinas' use of terms like "moderate violence" or "necessary violence" amount to what we'd call "force" today ?How then to square that with Aquinas' support in the Summa for executing heretics ? I think it's very hard to square this part of Aquinas with what the Church teaches. Or what the Gospel teaches.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.14.06 - 12:35 pm #

Hi Chris, just a note to clarify we should beware groups that say they are "in the Catholic Worker tradition...in the tradition of Dorothy Day" but which espouse views which she would deplore( "heterosexism," etc ala the "Open Door Community".)I wrote about this a few years back in an essay ("Dorothy Day would turn over in her grave"). Many want to cling to the train without holding to Dorothy's Catholic faith. Dorothy, like St. Catherine of Siena, could express disapproval of the Church on some stands but never repudiating her love and obedience to her or Catholic dogma, or even in a superior way. Prophets call Israel back to the Tradition and covenant---sometimes in strong langugaue we know--- traditions which are her own.The classic case is Dorothy Day's relationship with Cardinal Spellman, whom she said she would obey if he shut the paper down, despite profound differences with his Americanism "My country right or wrong" which vitiated the Church's universalism. She also did not suffer fools gladly, as shown in her reaction to priests who left the priesthood after Vatican II and those who followed them. Dorothy felt that Castro and Che, etc, represented the unpaid debts of capitalism as even JFK came to see when he started the peace corp, etc.SHStephen Hand Homepage 05.14.06 - 2:37 pm #

PS---The quote attributed to Dorothy Day on the Pope and conscience is, I can assure you spurious; it contradicts everything she ever wrote.Stephen Hand Homepage 05.15.06 - 11:34 am #

Stephen,When I read what Dorothy was alleged to have said, it seemed quite possible to interpret it charitably in favour of Dorothy's known Orthodox Cathlicism and loyalty to the teaching of the Popes and Bishops, so I did so.I don't think it's at all as damning of Dorothy as Mark seems to think.Even in Dorothy's life, there were fellow travellers who didn't share Dorothy's faith so I'm not surprised that some who admire her don't necessarily follow in her footsteps. That seems to be the case with all great spiritual leaders.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.15.06 - 12:05 pm #

SH wrote "PS---The quote attributed to Dorothy Day on the Pope and conscience is, I can assure you spurious; it contradicts everything she ever wrote."How can you be so sure that this quote is spurious? Why would the Catholic Agitator lie?Stephen, It really would not be that hard to disprove is Day said that. The Catholic Agitator is still in publication by the Catholic Worker Movement of Los Angeles, CA.How would it change your view of Day if the quote was true? I view it as an authentic quote, part and parcel of the type of anarchist things both Day and Maurin said. Marquette University and LA Catholic Worker have copies of the 1971 interview...http://lacatholicworker.org/our-...holic-agitator/ Mark 05.15.06 - 12:35 pm #

Mark,What's your exact beef with your quote from Day above ?I've read it and reread it and, while it might on the surface appear surprising, and some things might be difficult to correctly understand, I don't see anything in it that necessarily contradicts the Catholic faith.We need to be careful not to apply preconceived ideas to what others say. If you are convinced she's a Marxist then you'll interpret everything she said as having a Marxist meaning when such meaning was not at all intended.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.15.06 - 1:12 pm #

Check with Jim Forest and Tom Cornell, as I did (though it was unnecessary since I know her writings and life), who knew and worked with her, edited the Catholic Worker. Such words could only be cynically attributed to her.It would be like saying St Francis said the same; or alleging Fr. Neuhaus said somewhere he was a pacifist. Someone is playing games. Hearsay will never trump her published words right to the time of her death, to say nothing of her piety. The whole aim of the CW, she said over and over, was to publish the social teachings of the Popes.She was very saddened by Ammon Hennecy and others who espoused words like that. SHStephen Hand Homepage 05.15.06 - 7:35 pm #

A few brief points...It is conceivable that the Catholic Agitator misconstrued something she said. On the other hand I have seen those who did not share Dorothy Day's concern for orthodoxy distort her. The Zwick's wrote their book in part to correct such irresponsible distortions. Dorothy Day, yes, deplored the fact that in history the national churches too often sided with princes, but her answer was to call Christ's beloved bride back to her oldest tradition. Dorothy Day, a former socialist, was a Distributist, not a Marxist, see "G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Day on Economics:Neither Socialism nor Capitalism" http://www.cjd.org/paper/roots/r...ots/ rchest.html. Cardinal O'Connor began the case for her beatification http://www.cjd.org/paper/occonnor.html and, with the Vatican's permission, bestowed on her the title "Servant of God" precisely because of her sanctity and orthodoxy. He wrote:"It has also been noted that Dorothy Day often seemed friendly to political groups hostile to the Church, for example, communists, socialists, and anarchists. It is necessary to divide her political stances in two spheres: pre-and post- conversion. After her conversion, she was neither a member of such political groupings nor did she approve of their tactics or any denial of private property. Yet, it must be said, she often held opinions in common with them. What they held in common was a common respect for the poor and a desire for economic equity. In no sense did she approve of any form of atheism, agnosticism, or religious indifference. Moreover, her complete commitment to pacifism in imitation of Christ often separated her from these political ideologies. She rejected all military force; she rejected aid to force in any way in a most idealistic manner. So much were her "politics" based on an ideology of nonviolence that they may be said to be apolitical. Like so many saints of days gone by, she was an idealist in a non-ideal world. It was her contention that men and women should begin to live on earth the life they would one day lead in heaven, a life of peace and harmony. Much of what she spoke of in terms of social justice anticipated the teachings of Pope John Paul II and lends support to her cause". http://www.cjd.org/paper/occonnor.htmlSee also the Zwicks on all this: http://www.cjd.org/paper/amer.html"I would not dare write or speak or try to follow the vocation God has given me to work for the poor and for peace, if I did not have this constant reassurance of the Mass, the confidence the Mass gives." (Dorothy Day ---On Pilgrimage - March 1966" By Dorothy Day, The Catholic Worker, March 1966) "In 1967, when she made her last visit to Rome to take part in the International Congress of the Laity, she found she was one of two Americans -- the other an astronaut -- invited to receive Communion from the hands of Pope Paul VI. On her 75th birthday the Jesuit magazine America devoted a special issue to her, finding in her the individual who best exemplified "the aspiration and action of the American Catholic community during the past forty years." Notre Dame University presented her with its Laetare Medal, thanking her for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable." http://www.paulist.org/dorothyda...ay/ ddaybio.htmlJim Forest has written, "A major area of distress for [Dorothy Day] in the 1970's was what seemed to her the erosion occuring in the spiritual life of her fellow Catholics, including those in the Catholic Worker movement. More than ever Catholics seemed attentive to social issues she had been raising for forty years, but they were increasingly neglectful of the disciplines of the Church that were fundamental to her. "Penance seems ruled out today," she noted repeatedly. It pained her to notice co-workers skipping Mass and not taking the time for prayer. "With prayer, one can go on cheerfully and even happily, while without prayer how grim is the journey," she commented. "Prayer is as necessary to life as breathing. It is drink and food." "She mourned the abandonment by many of the rosary as a tool of prayer and meditation. She insisted on calling priests, "Father" and nuns "Sister" and was annoyed with those who preferred informality. She wished that priests and nuns would retain the traditional clothing which made their vocations visible to strangers. "The practice of artificial birth control by Catholics dismayed her, and she was appalled with the growing acceptance of abortion in the larger society: "I say make room for the children. Don?t do away with them." "She was irked by those who wanted to say "person" rather than "man": "When I write ?men,? she commented testily in her column, ?I mean people?". "She was saddened by the frequent expressions of contempt toward the Popes and bishops ---though she granted that there had been Popes who reminded her more of vultures than doves. She confessed that she found great pleasure in her tattered, out-of-date English-Latin missals, with "their short, precious accounts of the saints". "Her gratitude for Pope John XXIII was undiminished; she regarded him as a saint and published a prayer begging his intercession for the farm workers in one of her columns. But she felt that many were using the renewal he had inspired to vandalize the Church. This grieved her, and at times she felt very bitter. Her good humor was less in evidence, though by no means gone". ----From Love is the Measure, a biography of Dorothy Day by Jim Forest, Paulist Press, 1986, pp 181, 182; now published by Orbis Books.From the beginning, "Maurin immediately proceeded to indoctrinate Day in Roman Catholic social teaching, the writings of the popes and theologians and the teachings of the church councils. He also shared with her his ideas for a radical form of Catholic life based on a ?three-point program?: (1) houses of hospitality where the works of mercy could be practiced daily, (2) roundtable discussions for the clarification of thought, and (3) farming communes, where workers and scholars would live and work together on the land away from the dehumanizing conditions in industrialized urban America. This three-point program, along with the publication of a newspaper that would instruct readers in Roman Catholic social thought, provided Day with a model for radical Christian living and direct action. A synthesis of social justice and intimacy with God from within Catholicism now seemed possible."In the early months of 1933, Day began to put Maurin?s program into action. First she produced a newspaper, a unique example of radical advocacy journalism that she guided as editor in chief for the next 47 years of her life. The first edition of The Catholic Worker was distributed in Union Square, right alongside the Communist Daily Worker, on May 1, 1933. This date also marks the beginning of the Catholic Worker movement. Almost immediately Day and the writers of the newspaper began to take in the hungry and homeless who gathered around her New York Bowery district apartment, where the newspaper was produced. By 1934 Day and the Catholic Workers were living lives of voluntary poverty while serving hot soup and coffee daily to several hundred hungry and unemployed men and women. Houses of hospitality soon opened in cities across the United States, welcoming guests and serving the needy. Articles in The Catholic Worker reported on the eviction of the unemployed from their dwellings, worker strikes and pickets, the Catholic Church?s support for unions, the lynching of blacks in the South, child labor, the deplorable conditions for women working in factories and the wars in Ethiopia, China and Spain. (Steve Krupa, celebrating Dorothy Day, America)As for her views on "Catholic anarchism" that was vis a vis the almighty arrogance of the state, not the Church http://tcrnews2.com/ AnarchismCat...smCatholic.htmlMichael Rose wrote truly, "Further, despite her contributions, Dorothy Day has become an abused, politically-charged icon inasmuch as she and her Catholic Worker movement have been embraced by those who have long been distorting Catholic social teaching by, for example, applying it to situations the Church never intended, e.g. "tolerance" of homosexual lifestyles, liberation theology and secular socialism, to name a few. That is not to say that all Catholic Worker houses are of ill-repute. Many are indeed faithful to both the Church and Day?s original vision of promoting Catholic social teachings in an age when they are routinely abused or dismissed". ---St. Catherine Review, 1999One could go on and on, but it makes no sense to any who know her life and writings. ---SHStephen Hand Homepage 05.15.06 - 8:21 pm #

BTW, no, Dorothy day would never ask anyone to give up their homes to go live in a commune with all their kids. She would only ask that, if you are able, you consider creating what she called a "Christ room" in your home to take in the poor or diabled of the parish (someone recommended by a priest, e.g.) for a time as thankgiving for your blessings. Hers was the hospitality tradition of the monks, esp St. benedict, who were a sign for all Christians. She also taight with the saints that the unneeded coat in your closet belongs to the poor, etc.Stephen Hand Homepage 05.15.06 - 8:32 pm #

There were, I think, inconsistencies -- as when Day, a staunch pacifist, remarked "We are certainly not Marxist socialists nor do we believe in violent revolution. Yet we do believe that it is better to revolt, to fight, as Castro did . . . than to do nothing." Or when she suggested "There is a Christian communism and a Christian capitalism" -- if Day approached the Cuban revolution and Fidel Castro with a hopeful optimism -- as it certainly appears she did here, she was not the only Catholic to do so. But it cannot be said that she was a shill for Marxism in its proper sense -- the original Catholic Worker movement was as much a response/reaction to atheistic Marxism as it was to an unbridled capitalism. And the Dorothy Day of 1961 would not likely compose an apologetic for Castro's Cuba of today. On a related note, if the Los Angeles Catholic Worker is engaged in wilful misrepresentation of her words and her person, perhaps this should be addressed directly.Christopher Blosser Homepage 05.15.06 - 9:52 pm #

We are certainly not Marxist socialists nor do we believe in violent revolution. Yet we do believe that it is better to revolt, to fight, as Castro did . . . than to do nothing."I don't see any inconsistency between this and pacifism. Pacifists do believe that there are times when one has to revolt or "fight" (non-violently of course, as Christ did when clearing the temple). And Dorothy explicitly rejects violence - "nor do we believe in violent revolution".I think any of the Church's campaigns for social justice, against abortion or homosexual marriage or euthanasia is in a certain sense a revolt or a fight. I think we ought to revolt and "fight" more - we're often way too complacent.One can revolt and fight without violence. And this is precisely what happened in the fall of communism - a nonviolent revolt and fight.I think Christopher is right that the original Catholic Workers were as much a reaction against Marxism as against Capitalism.When I was becoming a Catholic, it was a great inspiration to me in praying the rosary and the Liturgy of the Hours and trying to make daily mass as often as possible that Dorothy did all these things too. I think she's long been a guide to me.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 12:27 am #

Stephen,Thanks for taking the time to defend Dorothy. Your remarks are very much appreciated.I still don't see anything wrong with the alleged quote Mark produced. Perhaps Dorothy really did say it or something rather like it ?God bless you and all your good work.Chris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 12:29 am #

[Chris Sullivan]: I don't see any inconsistency between this and pacifism. Pacifists do believe that there are times when one has to revolt or "fight"Chris, that's a nice spin on things and I get your point. But sticking to the actual comment, insofar as Fidel Castro siezed power at the point of a gun -- and insofar as Dorothy Day was a model of nonviolent resistance to injustice -- I personally see some inconsistency to recommend that "It is better to revolt and fight, as Castro did." Nonetheless, if one wants to get a comprehensive sense of what Dorothy thought of Cuba / Castro at the time of the revolution, the record can be checked here.Christopher Blosser Homepage 05.16.06 - 8:11 am #

I have requested a copy of the Catholic Agitator with the interview with Day to verify her remarks in regard to conscience being supreme. I really had no bias against Day and Maurin before I began to read their own words, and they are both very crafty as they play both sides of the fence(Catholicism and Marxism).Fr Siraco wrote a nice article a few years ago called Catholics for Marx http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp? ID=13586Mark 05.16.06 - 8:49 am #

I also wonder why the Distributivism apologists never comment on the failed experiment that was the Mary Farms...failed in the words of Day, in that no one worked, they would rather sit around and discuss politics and theology....Mark 05.16.06 - 8:54 am #

I am not knocking discussing theology and politics, I prefer to save those discussions for Friday evenings with friends and a few Black and Tans!!!Mark 05.16.06 - 9:06 am #

Chris,I know this is not the main discussion going on here, but I will reply anyhow. Yes, I would say that Aquinas?s use of terms like ?moderate violence? or ?necessary violence? does amount to what we?or at least I?call ?force.? I think it clears up the debate a significant amount. Whether one agrees something is mere force and not violence, as I suggest they be distinguished, is another matter. My only point is that the distinction should be allowed. When it is, the moral evaluation is much easier to make. As well, from doing so, I think people will more readily see the reasoning as to why some uses of force are justified and sometimes perhaps even necessary.As to your latter point, yes, I do think there are problems with Aquinas?s support for executing heretics. However, the context must be kept in mind. I am not justifying any Church support of this, just wanting to point out the historical reality of the state so often reliant and dependent upon its citizens or its subjects primarily being of one faith. The way states were run and quite frequently abusively run is tied to the desire and alleged necessity to keep order and respect for civil authority through a common faith. Without understanding this particular aspect of older societies it is hard and somewhat unfair to judge them by current or modern standards of how states are run and how they no longer are as tied to the explicit faith and devotions of its citizens. I guess what it comes down to is that if you allow capital punishment (which I concede some do not, though I do in certain circumstances) and you have a citizen who will not acknowledge the authority of the one in charge (in civil matters which were often tied to having control of many ecclesiastical matters too, such as naming bishops and so on) or will not swear an oath of (civil) fidelity to the state, then you have a person in your midst (quite often one because of the heresy though not solely that) who is in open hostility and outright rebellion to the state/civil authority. In those days and in some places today, this situation was/is met with capital punishment. I think explaining the historical context for such statements is important to understand why such was believed so prevalently and to know where to counter it if one disagrees. All that said, I am not justifying or supporting that the Church call for the execution of heretics per se or because of their heresy. That is a decision for the state to make and the state should make such decisions based on the common good, justice, and an equality that is rooted in our common dignity as human persons. How we get to that and what it means is another discussion. In Christ,W. Homepage 05.16.06 - 11:50 am #

Mark,Thanks for the Fr Sirico article which I thought good in general although rather biased in places.For example, Sirico says "Pope John Paul II has gone further than all his predecessors with an all-embracing critique of socialism that rejects its many offshoots, including the welfare state variety."But the Encyclical the article links to (Centesimus Annus) says instead :-"In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called "Welfare State." This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State." Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."Centesimus Annus does not at all reject the welfare state (as is clear from the 2nd sentence I quoted from CA) but correctly warns of some excesses and abuses that have developed in it in some places.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 12:11 pm #

Christopher,Thanks for the links to Dorothy on Cuba.From what I can tell, she sppears to have opposed violent revolution ("Affirms opposition to violent revolution and the ultimate triumph of good over evil" and "Reaffirms her pacifism even though Cuba "is an armed camp""), found evidence of freedom of religion, and welcomed many of the positive aspects of the social transformations in Cuba."It is better to revolt and fight, as Castro did."I think you're reading too much into "did". For example, one can say that its a good thing to revolt and fight against abortion clinics while still opposing the murder of abortionists.One can say that's its a good thing that Castro did revolt and "fight" against the appalling social conditions in Cuba without at all agreeing with the means he used. And I think that's what Dorothy meant.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 12:19 pm #

W.,Perhaps you have a point about ?moderate violence? or ?necessary violence? amounting to what the Church now refers to as ?force? (eg in CCC2309).But I think your above comments cut too much slack for executions. If human life really is sacred and the fifth command really means what it says, then there is never any justification for killing anyone merely because of their beliefs. And this is what the Church teaches. Aquinas was wrong on this point.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 12:25 pm #

Chris,I am ok with the possibility that Aquinas might be wrong or that he actually is wrong at times. He is not nor was he ever, contrary to the opinion of some, God.My above comments are merely to make the case that sometimes force is justified. As well, that sometimes, and here even fewer times than the generic force argument, that sometimes capital punishment is justified. To appeal to the 5th Commandment only bolsters my claim. The commandment is actually "Thou shall not murder" and not "Thou shall not kill." It was translated as "kill" in the context of a tradition that understood the injunction as allowing for certain forms of killing. Historical analysis demonstrates this. Further, it could not have been a ban on outright killing since the second command God gives humanity, prior to any particularizing covenant with Abraham, is for humans to kill those who murder others. At Genesis 9.6, God says: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image."It is because human life is sacred that murderers should be put to death, so that 1. they be punished for their crime and 2. lest they steal the life of another innocent.Now to your point precisely. For the most part, I agree with your conclusion that we should not kill most people because of their beliefs. However, in the case of some, such as Islamists who because of their beliefs call for the killing of Christians, Jews, and secular Westerners, as well as other infidels (in their eyes), there could be times when killing them would be justified (in my opinion). My point is when their beliefs lead to actions that cause the murder of innocents. I think we would be justified in killing and/or putting to death through the death penalty someone like Osama bin Laden, who because of his beliefs has caused the deaths of many. I think the point of Aquinas (on a recognized charitable read) is when the views of the heretic lead to his unwillingness to live peacefully and submissively to the social order because his views will lead to actions detrimental to the state. Though I am not convinced the situations in his day were so bad that the heretic need be killed (most likely not, I grant), I can think of scenarios today where the "heretic" would at minimal have to be imprisoned and if that did not solve the matter then I could see where because of his beliefs and continued call to murder infidels would lead to capital punishment. That is a problem with these times. People do not realize the nature of the Islamists and their war on what they perceive as Christendom or "the West" or "the Great Satan" and so on. They are calling for our death and because they have tremendous influence and are inciting others to act out on this desire, they are more dangerous than many Westerners realize. However, this may be a bit off topic. To stick to the historical situation of medieval Europe. I think for the most part the rulers should have found a way, could have found a way to live peacefully with heretics in their midst. What that would have done to society, the price of that freedom, is partially what we have been experiencing for a couple centuries now: the withering away of Europe and the culture that made it. I am not someone who wishes to go back or wishes to return to a day of the monarchs. I am just pointing out this price.W. Homepage 05.16.06 - 12:56 pm #

W.I don't think Genesis 9.6 means what you think it means. I suggest "killing causes more killing" is the meaning.You won't find the Church justifying the execution of Osama Bin Laden.But it isn't because of his beliefs that a man should be imprisoned but because of his actions posing a threat to others. Advocating killing is an action.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 1:35 pm #

Chris,Genesis 9.6 could mean nothing but what I wrote if it is to make any sense and the whole tradition of rabbinic and Christian commentary has acknowledged that at minimum it meant that then and at most it means that universally. God commands it. There are no two ways around it. You could say it is historically conditioned and other things, but you at least would have to grant that at that time and in that place, God commanded the killing of murderers. And no, I don't expect to find the Church justifying the execution of Osama. I did not mean it that way. I think the Church should just say that certain principles and standards must be met if a criminal is to be sentenced to death. It would probably not say much absolutely either way in this case. I see how it might, but I think it would be the pope speaking not as "the Church," though as someone whose voice should be considered.I concur on the last point you make. My point was that one's beliefs can sometimes be so tied up to one's actions that the two are inseparable ... for some adherents of a belief system ... and in a way that is seriously grave for many. I really don't think we are that far apart on this, just stressing different points or different sides of the same point. Ok, maybe just a little.In Christ,W. Homepage 05.16.06 - 1:50 pm #

God commanded the killing of murderers.I don't believe he ever did. He may have tolerated some laws Moses made up but that's about the extent of it.Jesus, however, taught simply "do not kill" and in the case where the rabbis thought a sinner ought to be killed, and Moses taught she should be killed, (the woman caught in adultery) he refused to stone her.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 2:13 pm #

Chris,So then are you saying that you don't believe God really said what the Bible has Him saying? That the words in Genesis are not really his, that they are words Moses made up and attributed to Him?W. Homepage 05.16.06 - 2:46 pm #

What, St Thomas Aquinas contradicted the Gospel? Plainly, it is the other way around: it was Luther who contradicted the Gospel when he said:"That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."(33rd condemned proposition.Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine - Condemning the errors of Luther, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...C/L10EXDOM.HTM) .De pacifistas, libera nos Domine!Felipe 05.16.06 - 3:08 pm #

That heretics be burned is against the will of the SpiritThe bull doesn't define what is meant by "heretics be burned".Was it execution by burning ?Or simply the cremation of the dead body instead of burial ?If we're going to start running around saying that the Church teaches that heretics ought to be killed then we're going to be running around spreading heresy. God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 3:29 pm #

So, according to Mr Chris Sullivan, St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine were "running around spreading heresy" when they supported death penalty for heresiarchs. Unbelievable! About the bull's meaning, let's not be cynical: there must have been some kind of plant or animal named "heretic" in the Middle Ages, which some people burned and Luther objected to that, why not? Then again, the bull does not define "burning", perhaps that was slang for tickling back then, who knows?... Indeed, liberalism IS a sin!Felipe 05.16.06 - 3:37 pm #

W.What words in Genesis that God commands killing ? I think you mean Exodus, Numbers or Letiviticus.I'm not sure your translation of Genesis 9:6 is quite correct. The Douay-Rheims puts it :-"Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God"It doesn't say his blood shall be shed by man.I'm not saying Moses made things up and attributed them to God but that God allowed Moses to make laws for his people which would not stand for all time (eg the law allowing divorce). In Exodus 20:22 - 21:12 we read :-"And the Lord said to Moses: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel:...These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them....He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death."In which God tells Moses to set certain judgements before the people (including 21:12).But whose judgements are they ?Unlike the previous commandments at the start of Exodus 20 which were given by God himself, including "thou shalt not kill", these latter judgements are not given by God but drawn up by Moses and tolerated by God.As Jesus said about Moses judgment allowing divorce "in the beginning it was not so but it was for your hard heartedness that Moses allowed this". The same applies for the many sins which Moses taught deserved the death penalty.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 3:52 pm #

Felipe,If the Church had not yet proscribed the death penalty for heresy in St Augustine's day or St Thomas' day, as she has done today, then their advocacy could not have been heresy.Now that the Church has proscribed the death penalty for heresy to advocate it would now be against what the church teaches ie a heresy.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 3:59 pm #

The Church never proscribed the death penalty for heresy; your exegesis of Genesis is Protestant private interpretation.Felipe 05.16.06 - 4:36 pm #

Felipe,The Second Vatican Council infallibly declared (Dignitatus Humanae - On the Right of the Person and of Communities to social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious) :-2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.This rules out the use of the death penalty for heresy.The Catechism clearly rejects cruel punishments for heresy (eg buring alive) :-2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.CCC2267 only allows the use of the death penalty for the "very rare, if not practically nonexistent" case where it is "the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."These rule out the use of the death penalty for heresy.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 4:53 pm #

Chris,I do not mean Exodus, Numbers or Letiviticus. (They have commands that are under the aegis of Abraham and not seen as to all humanity.) I mean Genesis and Gensis 9.6 to be specific. The point of referencing Genesis is because it is a command to Noah and before any covenant with Abraham or Moses for that matter. In fact, it is the second command God gives humanity, God gives the human race to live by. The first is with regard to procreation and the second is to put murderers to death. With regard to the translation, if you go to the Hebrew and translations of the Hebrew, you will find the phrase "by man" in the text. Therefore, God in the Bible in the book of Genesis does say that "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image."If you are going to challenge this translation, I ask you to look at the Hebrew and/or look at literal translations of the text. You said, "God allowed Moses to make laws for his people which would not stand for all time (eg the law allowing divorce)."This shouldn't apply because I am not talking about a law that Moses is said to have a part of or part to. I am talking about a command God gives Noah, a command He instructs humanity to live by, which is the significance of these laws He gives Noah. You also wrote, "Unlike the previous commandments at the start of Exodus 20 which were given by God himself, including 'thou shalt not kill', these latter judgements are not given by God but drawn up by Moses and tolerated by God."These are not the ones I am talking about. See above. As well, what the Hebrew text has is "Thou shall not murder." Hebrew has a separate word for kill and it is not used here. What is used is the Hebrew word for "murder." One reason is because killing was allowed in certain situations and, according to the rabbis and Christian commentators I have read on this, God commanded the killing of murderers so He could not then tell His people not to kill (absolutely speaking). With regard to Felipe's point, I agree with your response. It was not a heresy nor did I think you were saying Aquinas and Augustine were in heresy for what they advocated. Your distinction is right on. In Christ,W. Homepage 05.16.06 - 5:03 pm #

W.,I thought the second command God gave was to Cain, against the killing of Abel.And Cain worries that he will be put to death :-Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from thy face, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: everyone, therefore, that findeth me, shall kill me.But God replies that, no, his intent is not to put murderers to death at all :-And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not be so: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him.Even should a man kill Cain, God does not say that the killer of Cain ought to be put to death but "punished sevenfold".On the translation of Genesis 9:6, the Hebrew does say "by man" but the Greek Septuagint does not.I don't think one can really square your interpretation of the right to kill murderers with what the Catechism now teaches about the death penalty.From a pro-life position, I'm opposed to all killing.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 5:38 pm #

W.,It seems to me that the command in Genesis 9:6 is the same as what Christ commanded St Peter at Gethsemane :-Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Mat26:52That is: "Don't kill". Killing only causes more killing. Instead, don't kill and break the cycle of killing and violence.The same idea is in Rev13:10 He that shall lead into captivity, shall go into captivity: he that shall kill by the sword, must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 5:53 pm #

"The Second Vatican Council infallibly declared ..." Huh? But Pope Paul VI declared that... No. I'm not discussing, not tonight. Wrong blog. (I'm more of the Ratzinger Prayer Club than of the Ratzinger Fan Club myself.)...though that letter from then Cardinal Ratzinger to US Bishops clearly allowed for the death penalty... Ops! Err... You can have the last word. You have my prayers.Felipe 05.16.06 - 6:12 pm #

Though I must add, before I go, that Our Lord also said that "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (St Luke 22:36). Of course, you'll tell me that Christ was refering to decorative items to place above the fireplace...Felipe 05.16.06 - 6:16 pm #

There is a lot to respond to here. All killing? Does that mean that self-defense is wrong? Does that mean that fighting Hitler and/or the Japanese was wrong? Does that mean that fighting against the person trying to rape a child and having to kill him to fend him off is wrong? That is the implication of what you are saying. The Catechism still teaches that a state has the right to the death penalty. That can never change because of the nature of the teaching and the nature of the right. That said, what can be said is that the application of the right should be tempered when possible. If bloodless means are possible, I think the criminal should be dealt with in that way. However, there are times when bloodless means are not possible. The Catechism still allows for the death penalty in those cases. However, you don't. What confuses me is that you seem to rely on the Catechism and the Church's teachings in some things but not on all moral issues. I find it difficult to accept your reasoning that the CCC says such and such or the Church says such and such and then to add that you are against all killing, which the Church and the Catechism are not against (the "all killing"). Killing is justified in some cases, according to the Church, the Catechism, and moral reasoning. If you want to still argue such, fine, but you lose credibility when you rely on the Church or the CCC in some situations but not in all moral matters the two have voiced a teaching on. Either the Church and the Catechism or they are not. Trying to have it both ways is dishonest. Really, the standard of right and wrong is not the Church and the CCC in your argumentation but something else. You perhaps. Which is fine with me. I just think we should be clear that you do not regard the Church and the CCC as authoritative as you imply at some points in your argumentation. I hope you do not take this as a personal attack. It is not meant that way. It is just meant to clarify one of the reasons why we differ on some issues. I am relying on a certain tradition that does not seem to be the same as yours, at least not completely, and therefore our standards or reference points at times are at odds. For example, one cannot claim the CCC or the Church as an authority and then say, with the same credibility and value, that all killing is wrong. Your use of the CCC and the Church in other cases has just been weakened because you are now positing something that goes against the very authority you earlier relied upon. I will just add that our understandings of the Genesis are very different and both of us seem fixed in our understanding. Whether we are reading into it is for others to decide. I think I am as convinced as you so there we go. I think I have just as many arguments as you to support my point. It seems we both could go on and on, which I don't mind but maybe we should do so in another forum, not in these comments. We can do so on my blog if you would like. I don't want to take this space from Christopher.As always, this is in Christian charity and a search for the truth of matters.In the Risen Christ,W. Homepage 05.16.06 - 6:55 pm #

The Second Vatican Council infallibly declared ..." Huh? But Pope Paul VI declared that...What did he declare ?The Navarre commentary (a project begun by St Josemaria Escriva) on Luke 22:36-8 says :-Our Lord is speaking symbolically when he talks about making provision and buying weapons to put up a fight. The apostles take him literally and this leads him to express a certain indulgent nderstanding: "It is enough." "Just in the same way as we, when we are speaking to someone and see that he does not understand, say: "Very well, leave it" - Theophylact writing in "Enarratio in Evangelium Lucae".God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 6:58 pm #

W.I think one can have self defense without deliberate killing.I think the Church doctrine on killing is slowly developing closer and closer to a strict application of the fifth commandment. One can see such development in the revision of the Catechism on the Death Penalty.The Catechism still teaches that a state has the right to the death penalty. That can never change because of the nature of the teaching and the nature of the right.Well, to the best of my knowledge the Church has never taught that definitively or dogmatically. By that I mean that no Pope or Ecumenical council has ever stated a dogma that there is any right to kill.Nor can she or will she, because the fifth commandment, which admits of no exceptions, precludes this.If you like we can continue this interesting discussion on your blog.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 7:10 pm #

I guess what really gets me and just shows the different perspectives we are coming from is your insistence that the fifth commandment is as absolute as you say.On what authority are you saying the fifth commandment "admits of no exceptions," that it "precludes" any killing?I think that is the bit that gets me riled up the most. It is so against the tradition of the text and the text itself and the whole of the Scriptures themselves. I find it impossible to be as you say for many reasons. One is textual. It was written in Hebrew and the Hebrew says "murder" not "kill." It may be that a Christian tradition has regarded the commandment as you say but the commandment itself is not what you say it is. Textually, I have explained so. Culturally and religiously, it was never regarded so by the Jews. Once the Christian part of the tradition started to develop and grow out of its Jewish roots, the text was still seen as forbidding murder and not all killing. The distinction was often noted. Thus, when it came time to translate the text, the context was understood that this was not a blanket statement against all killing. It could not have been because other parts of the Scripture allow for killing and those authorizing the translation as "kill" instead of "murder" also allowed for and noted occasions where killing was justified. In all, the fifth commandment does not categorically forbid all killing. No Catholic teaching will ever say such. And however much development happens with regard to fewer occasions of the death penalty, an outright blanket statement would contradict other teachings and principles of the Church and the magisterium. However, we are clearly at odds about that. I do think though that you are applying something to the text of the 5th commandment that is not there and was not regarded as being there by the Church or the Tradition. That is part of the pacifist tradition in the Church, one that is not in sync with the Church's teachings, however much it may be in line on some key issues.Do you have a blog? You write well and can carry an argument. You should if you do not.W. Homepage 05.16.06 - 8:15 pm #

On what authority are you saying the fifth commandment "admits of no exceptions," that it "precludes" any killing?The authority of God and his divine revelation, namely that the decalogue does not list any exceptions and neither did Christ when asked about the commandments.My understanding of the Hebrew is that it says "kill" and not "murder". The Catechism says "kill".Do you know of any Papal or Ecumenical Council definition that states that killing is OK in some circumstances? It seems that the Church has never defined this dogmatically.It seems to me that if there are to be any exceptions to one of the commandments then it needs to be based on solid divine revelation or an infallible dogmatic definition by the Church. Both appear lacking.Thank you for your kind and thoughtful comments. It has been a pleasure to discuss this with you.One day, if I ever make it to heaven, I'm going to ask what all those scriptures we pondered over really mean.I have a blog but I lack time to add to it much.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 8:27 pm #

W.,If you know more about the Hebrew "kill" vs "murder" in the decalogue I'd be interested to learn more.God BlessChris Sullivan 05.16.06 - 8:31 pm #

Here are some links to articles explaining the Hebrew on murder and kill (I do not endorse all their other statements, but the point they make about the Hebrew is consistent.):http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/ ...tNotMurder.htmlhttp://www.apostolic.net/ biblica...lpunishment.htmhttp://www.godandscience.org/apo...cs/ notkill.html There are many more. I suggest just to take a look at Torah's and/or the commentary portions of the Torah.W. Homepage 05.16.06 - 9:06 pm #

Whoah. I post about Fr. Sirico, the Zwicks and the interpretation of Catechism of Catholic Social Doctrine and Chris Sullivan manages to turn the discussion to the death penalty and the morality of the use of armed force. Now I know what it feels like to be Mark Shea. ;-)Christopher Blosser Homepage 05.16.06 - 10:08 pm #