FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The fruits of Gaudium et Spes
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I saw this on the Washington Post website today and almost threw up in my mouth:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfait...issue.html

Three things came to mind following the immediate reaction of disgust:

1. This shows the dangers of poorly worded documents and the need for corrections/clarifications.
2. There must be some way of showing that this argument is wrong using other portions of Gaudium et Spes itself.
3. If the USCCB and/or Archbishop Wuerl were worth anything whatsoever, they would issue an immediate condemnation of this article along with a clear statement of actual Catholic teaching.

I'm sure that many on this forum would have even stronger reactions than this.  I don't have time to look at the document right now, but I thought I'd see if anyone here could put together an argument using other parts of Gaudium et Spes to show how the idiot writing this article is wrong.  When arguing with neo-liberal Catholics, any argument based on pre-Vatican II documents tends to fall on deaf ears because "everything changed with Vatican II."
(11-04-2010, 03:17 PM)ies0716 Wrote: [ -> ]I saw this on the Washington Post website today and almost threw up in my mouth:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfait...issue.html

Three things came to mind following the immediate reaction of disgust:

1. This shows the dangers of poorly worded documents and the need for corrections/clarifications.
2. There must be some way of showing that this argument is wrong using other portions of Gaudium et Spes itself.
3. If the USCCB and/or Archbishop Wuerl were worth anything whatsoever, they would issue an immediate condemnation of this article along with a clear statement of actual Catholic teaching.

I can't help but feel inclined to agree with these. I think that if the USCCB and/or Abp. Wuerl were acting like Catholics in authoritative leadership positions, and with concern for the Faith, they would do just that.

Quote:I'm sure that many on this forum would have even stronger reactions than this.  I don't have time to look at the document right now, but I thought I'd see if anyone here could put together an argument using other parts of Gaudium et Spes to show how the idiot writing this article is wrong.  When arguing with neo-liberal Catholics, any argument based on pre-Vatican II documents tends to fall on deaf ears because "everything changed with Vatican II."

Speaking of Guadium et Spes: It's hard to imagine the errors were accidental or careless. The error(s) jump(s) out to all those who are well-versed in the Faith. To think that an entire council of bishops could approve the document and yet none of them notice is wishful thinking, methinks. Assuming these bishops understand the Catholic Faith, which I think is a reasonable assumption to make given their high-raking ecclesiastical offices, it is more likely that these bishops allowed it to be released this way because it reflects more accurately the Modernist vision of the the post-conciliar reforms. Such a deduction is at least consistent with the majority of their actions and statements.

The way the document is written is so dangerous that it is all but undeniably heretical. If the quotation mark had been written after the word "these," it would be outright heretical. As it is, it is misleading at best. If one doesn't read the fine print--that is, if they don't follow the footnotes--they will be convinced that their own reconciliation document is more dangerous than the very document that spawned it.
Quote:"Such does not constitute a rejection of the faith or a weakening of commitments to the Gospel. It is rather the effect of a maturation for the Catholic conscience."

LOL...these "enlightened" and "mature" Catholics crack me up every time. What a bunch of pathetic whiners.

I won't move a finger to defend Gaudium and Spes though. It's nothing but a piece of modernist trash and its fruits are obvious to anyone with eyes to see.
(11-04-2010, 04:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:"Such does not constitute a rejection of the faith or a weakening of commitments to the Gospel. It is rather the effect of a maturation for the Catholic conscience."

LOL...these "enlightened" and "mature" Catholics crack me up every time. What a bunch of pathetic whiners.

Those are codewords for Modernism, obviously.

I asked a former Catholic now Prot why she lost the Faith once.  She told me she didn't lose the Faith, she "matured" in it and didn't need a child's relationship with God that involved rules and confession and such.

Obviously what some think of as "mature" and "enlightened" is actually childish and blackened.  It all comes down to non serviam with weak rationalizations usually based on relativistic morality.

Sometimes I have to stop myself from wanting to grab these people and shaking them until they wake up.
(11-04-2010, 04:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I won't move a finger to defend Gaudium and Spes though. It's nothing but a piece of modernist trash and its fruits are obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

While being careful not to overstep my boundaries as a Catholic lay person, I must agree with you in my obligation to stand against heresy, even if that heresy is largely accepted--promoted or furthered at least--by those in authoritative ecclesiastical positions. Is it the article that is to blame or is it the very Modernist-influenced teachings that have given rise to these sorts of conclusions?

That's one of the (many) problems with Modernism: its conclusion is glaring but its constituent parts are more subtle. As has already been said, the ultimate conclusion of Modernism is apostasy, but very few today have the audacity--and cleverly so--to take Modernism to its logical conclusion just yet. One of the first clergyman to try to take the next step in this direction publicly, however, was Abp. Zollitsch, the cleric who denied the redemption of Christ. And what does the Vatican have to say? Nothing. Silence. It is deafening . . . and telling.

Modernists can speak like Catholics, but they can also speak like adherents to whatever other faith they choose to sanction next.
(11-04-2010, 04:16 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes I have to stop myself from wanting to grab these people and shaking them until they wake up.

Yes, it is sad to see these poor souls being drug to hell by the fruits of the "Spirit of Vatican II." Indeed, "an enemy hath done this."
(11-04-2010, 04:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:"Such does not constitute a rejection of the faith or a weakening of commitments to the Gospel. It is rather the effect of a maturation for the Catholic conscience."

LOL...these "enlightened" and "mature" Catholics crack me up every time. What a bunch of pathetic whiners.

I won't move a finger to defend Gaudium and Spes though. It's nothing but a piece of modernist trash and its fruits are obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

I agree that the article is pretty ridiculous.  I don't disagree that Gaudium et Spes isn't worth defending due to its cut-and-pasted construction and ambiguous wording.  I was speculating, however, that the quote given by the author is taken out of context.  When I have some time tonight I'll look through Gaudium et Spes to see if I can find some other statements in it that contradict the author's interpretation.

The problems deriving from Vatican II can be found in layers, each more liberal and/or ambiguous than the last:
1. The official Latin texts of the documents themselves (which is bad enough, mainly due to calculated ambiguity)
2. The horribly mangled English translations of those documents (which are what is typically used as the basis of citation, but are in many cases a far cry from the Latin originals)
3. The "Spirit of Vatican II" interpretation, which goes even farther than the loosest, most liberal mistranslation could ever be stretched to include

I'm speculating that the author of this piece merely lifts a single quotation from the English translation of Gaudium et Spes and doesn't even attempt to properly interpret it or set it in its original context.  It's been a long time since I've read the document, but I'm reasonably sure that, as bad as it is, it can't reasonably be read in the manner that this author did.

None of this defends Gaudium et Spes itself, of course.  Official Church documents should not possess the slightest bit of ambiguity that can be exploited by modernists and liberals for their own ends.
Here's a quick argument I just threw together from Gaudium et Spes to counter the article for your request from number 2:

It bears pointing out that the quote taken from Gaudium et Spes in the article is not novel. The same idea is found in Leo XIII's Immortale Dei:

Immortale Dei Wrote:"The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right."

The author of the article has simply given it an un-Catholic sense. Being autonomous or supreme in one’s own field or orbit or sphere does not mean the field/orbit/sphere is infinite. There are limits, duties, etc.

Anyway, I didn’t have the chance to go through the whole thing, but here are some more quotes from that same chapter of Gaudium et Spes for which the quote in the article is taken:

Gaudium et Spes Wrote:"It follows also that political authority, both in the community as such and in the representative bodies of the state, must always be exercised within the limits of the moral order and directed toward the common good...
---
"But where citizens are oppressed by a public authority overstepping its competence, they should not protest against those things which are objectively required for the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and the rights of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority, while keeping within those limits drawn by the natural law and the Gospels….All citizens, therefore, should be mindful of the right and also the duty to use their free vote to further the common good.
---
"It is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls require it."

So, is abortion within the limits of the moral order and common good?

Gaudium et Spes gives a long list of evils. Here are some and what it calls them:
Gaudium et Spes Wrote:“Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.”
So, to sum it up, according to Gaudium et Spes abortion is an infamy that poisons human society--it is therefore detrimental to the common good. Voters have the duty to further the common good and the government cannot go beyond the limits proscribed for its sphere, which includes the objective m
Well, GeS does say that abortion is a crime. So there's that.

Really, though, how about pointing out that Dignitatis Humanae instructs that government action must conform to the objective moral order?
(11-04-2010, 09:28 PM)McNider Wrote: [ -> ]Well, GeS does say that abortion is a crime. So there's that.

Really, though, how about pointing out that Dignitatis Humanae instructs that government action must conform to the objective moral order?

That is laudable.

But I suppose when one has to search to try to find one truly Catholic teaching in the teachings of . . . well a council of the Catholic Church, there is good reason to feel as if Christ has been betrayed by those holding high ecclesiastical offices, which is certainly a good reason to lament.

To me, more than anything, this exemplifies the utter putridity of sin and the repugnance of indifference.