27 replies to this topic

[dUSt]

Please do all that you can to promote this video. Go to the YouTube page. Like it. Comment on it. Share it with your Facebook friends. Post it on Twitter. Google + it. Blog about it. Post it in other forums.

Thank you!!!

[MissyP89]

That is a sweet cassock. Video is amazing, too. Thank you for all you do, Father.

Looks like the comments section is already is desperate need of some fuzzy bunnies...

Edited by MissyP89, 07 March 2012 - 05:03 PM.

[dUSt]

Already made Life Site News:
http://www.lifesiten...ing-hhs-mandate

[dUSt]

And yes, the YouTube comments section definitely needs some Fuzzy Bunny Crusaders!!!

[EmilyAnn]

razzle dazzle video, I'm already sharing it. I'm not American but it's something that should matter to all Catholics everywhere.

Random point but that church is incredibly beautiful. I admit I was distracted by how gorgeous it is.

[dUSt]

http://being1732.com/?p=8763

[dUSt]

The Blaze:
http://www.theblaze....rys-foundation/

[BigJon16]

Padre Pontifex is way too amesome. Are you sure the Phorum can contain him? I mean, it's already slow as it is.... hahahahaha

[FuturePriest387]

Sweet. I'm glad it's getting attention.

[eagle_eye222001]

Someone from this Phorum has the top comment right now.

And someone disliked it??!!!

[Hasan]

Please do all that you can to promote this video. Go to the YouTube page. Like it. Comment on it. Share it with your Facebook friends. Post it on Twitter. Google + it. Blog about it. Post it in other forums.

Thank you!!!

This seems disingenuous. If religious liberty is a God given right then why is it explicitly condemned in the syllabus of errors? Why is a Catholic state still the normative political arrangement? He doesn't like the mandate. Fine. He wants to threaten the administration with political repercussions if they don't go back even on the compromise. Fine. Absolutely his right. Politics is a contest of wills. But stop pretending that Catholicism has ever suggested that absolute freedom of religious conscience and practice is normative and good in itself.

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4
http://www.papalency...09/p9quanta.htm

Error has no rights, right?

Edited by Hasan, 08 March 2012 - 12:38 AM.

[dUSt]

This seems disingenuous. If religious liberty is a God given right then why is it explicitly condemned in the syllabus of errors? Why is a Catholic state still the normative political arrangement? He doesn't like the mandate. Fine. He wants to threaten the administration with political repercussions if they don't go back even on the compromise. Fine. Absolutely his right. Politics is a contest of wills. But stop pretending that Catholicism has ever suggested that absolute freedom of religious conscience and practice is normative and good in itself.

Error has no rights, right?

It seems that you have failed at making a point because you did not seem to properly understand the document you quoted. The encyclical reads "personal rights" (ie- created by man). In the video Fr Pontifex says "given by the creator".

So, it seems to me that you are being the disingenuous one--or, if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt--dense.

[Hasan]

It seems that you have failed at making a point because you did not seem to properly understand the document you quoted. The encyclical reads "personal rights" (ie- created by man). In the video Fr Pontifex says "given by the creator".

So, it seems to me that you are being the disingenuous one--or, if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt--dense.

Ok. I've reread your statement several times and it still seems as though you are claiming that 'created by man' is analytically implicit in the meaning of a 'personal right.' That is just not true. It would be completely coherent to claim that something is a 'God given personal right.' I'm not aware of any historical tradition whereby 'personal rights' are defined as rights that are not given by God.

[dUSt]

Ok. I've reread your statement several times and it still seems as though you are claiming that 'created by man' is analytically implicit in the meaning of a 'personal right.' That is just not true. It would be completely coherent to claim that something is a 'God given personal right.' I'm not aware of any historical tradition whereby 'personal rights' are defined as rights that are not given by God.

Huh? You talk confusingly, and do not seem to excel at making clear points.

The encyclical you quoted, first of all, should be read in historical context. If you would have done that, you may have realized it was written in response to specific things that were happening at that time. Language and the meaning of that language does not always mean the same thing today, as it did back then. So, you cannot simply pull a few sentences from it and then twist it to your own discretion.

The encyclical basically says that we do not have the "right" to be wrong. Like you said, errors have no rights. So, getting back to what father actually said, rights are "given by the creator", obviously, the creator cannot be wrong--cannot error.

So.... yeah, I don't get what you're trying to say. Maybe you should quite while I'm ahead.

[dUSt]

Also, please do not debate in this thread. If you would like to debate, please start a new thread in the Debate Table. This thread has a specific purpose. If you violate this request I will ban you. Thanks.

[Pontifex]

I agree with dust's posts. Also, please remember we are talking about rights that are unalienable. By definition it means they cannot be taken away because they have been instilled in us by God. We are not talking about man made constructs that are subject to error. We are talking about the perfect will of God.

[Hasan]

I agree with dust's posts. Also, please remember we are talking about rights that are unalienable. By definition it means they cannot be taken away because they have been instilled in us by God. We are not talking about man made constructs that are subject to error. We are talking about the perfect will of God.

Thank you, Father. I'm not sure if your comment is just a coincidence or whether you are commenting on my assertions here. If the latter then please note that I will not be responding to anything on this thread and have made a thread continuing my discussion with dUst on the debate table.

[BG45]

I find YouTube comment sections rapidly deplete my faith in humanity because it reveals many internet users to be misanthropic in nature. Great video however!

[dUSt]

Glenn Beck just talked about Fr Pontifex's newest video on the radio. Featured as a bright red banner on theblaze.com! Keep sharing!

[inunionwithrome]

It's a great video. It only seems that it wants to work for me on PM though. I'd email it, but I'm a little technologically challenged right now. I'll pass it on when I figure it out. Thanks for sharing!