Showing posts with label hardon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hardon. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

KYMT: The Church supports the death penalty

If you ever hear someone say that the Church is anti-death penalty (of course consider context) you can dismiss them clearly as being ignorant of Catholic teaching on the matter.  Tjose that defend the right of the state to use such are not to be confused with Gnostics or being holier than thou.  Both are excuses for passing by actual teachings in order to play into modern affections and novelties proposed that play well with emotional people.

Because I dont think it worthwhile to reinvent the wheel, below are a few resources"



The Traditional Case for Capital Punishment Fr. C. John McCloskey III

...

Most importantly, the Catholic Church’s Magisterium does not and never has advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. The U.S. bishops have conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Even the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin – hardly a conservative – never stated that every criminal has a right to continue living, nor did he deny that the state has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. St. John Paul II, although opposed to most applications of the death penalty, thought the same.

Let’s hear what St. Augustine had to say on this topic: “ . . . there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, You shall not kill.” (City of God, Bk I, 21)

Augustine also said that capital punishment protects those who are undergoing it from further sinning, which might continue if their life went on.

If this is not enough, consider the thoughts of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, on this topic. Citing Exodus 22, which specifies that certain categories of wrongdoers shall not be permitted to live, Aquinas unequivocally states that civil rulers can execute justly to protect the peace of the state. St. Thomas finds frivolous the argument that murderers should be allowed to live in hopes of their repentance, questioning how many innocent people should have to suffer death while waiting for the guilty to repent. While capital punishment is not justifiable as an act of vengeance, according to Aquinas it is justifiable to help secure the safety of the community by removing a dangerous wrongdoer and deterring others from his example; in addition, it is an act of justice, allowing expiation for the wrongdoer’s sin.

CondemnedManPrayswithPriest

St. Paul in his hearing before Festus says, “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.” (Acts 25:11) Very clearly this constitutes an acknowledgment on the part of the apostle to the gentiles that the state continues to have the power of life and death in the administration of justice. And of course when we first encounter Paul (Saul at that point), he is cooperating in the stoning to death of St. Stephen for the crime of blasphemy.

Pope Pius XII said, “In the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed under the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo, stated: “Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thou shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.”

None of the figures mentioned above were bloodthirsty individuals. All probably would have agreed with several modern popes that great care be used in modern conditions in applying the death penalty. But it’s doubtful they would have supported abolishing it.

Indeed, for any son or daughter of God, it is a great grace to know the time of one’s death, as it gives us the opportunity to get right with the Lord who will judge us at our death. Perhaps many people have been saved in this way by the death penalty. Who knows what would have happened if they had been allowed to linger in this life, one day possibly killing other people?

And there are other, utterly unexpected effects. The great Catholic convert and evangelist Frank Sheed wrote a book called The Map of Life. In one edition of the book, he tells of a man sentenced to death for murder. After reading Sheed’s book, the man wrote Sheed that, if what he had put down in that book about heaven and forgiveness was true, though he was offered clemency by the State, he decided to allow the execution, because he would be going to heaven now as a Catholic convert."

Read the whole of it HERE


Capital Punishment New Testament Teaching

by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Nowhere in the New Testament is capital punishment outlawed. On the contrary, the New Testament not only recognizes the right of the State to exercise authority in the name of God, but enjoins obedience to the State in applying the laws of God to its citizens.

As already noted, St. Paul explicitly declares that the State has authority from God to punish criminals. Christ Himself tells us to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. St. Peter enjoins Christians to be good citizens. Moreover, we are to obey civil authority – not mainly, but also "because you are afraid of being punished" (Romans 13:1-6).

But Sacred Scripture needs to be explained. As we reread the early Church's interpretation of the rights of civil authority, we find a remarkable thing.

From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist.

Two names especially stand out that wrote belligerently against all war, and therefore espoused universal pacifism. Tertullian, 160-220, and Lactantius, 240-320 also fought strenuously against capital punishment of condemned criminals.

At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil.

The Church's Teaching

Over the centuries, the Church's writers have defended the traditional Christian teaching on capital punishment.

St. Augustine explained St. Paul's teaching on the State's right to inflict capital punishment. Certainly the State may execute convicted criminals. But it should exercise Christian forbearance and thus temper juridical severity.

Pope Leo I in the fifth century and Pope Nicholas I in the ninth century made it clear that the Church herself could not be directly involved in capital punishment; but the pontiffs assumed that the State was divinely authorized to do so. So, too, the Councils of Toledo (675) and Fourth Lateran (1215) forbade the clergy to take direct part in the juridical process or sentencing of a person on a capital charge. But again, the councils took for granted that the State may condemn a convicted criminal to death and execute the sentence.

St. Thomas Aquinas made the classic defense of capital punishment. He reasoned that "if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good" (Summa Theologica II, II, 64, 2). Certainly the crime had to be very serious, and the welfare of society was at stake. But there was no question about the moral validity of capital punishment.

In the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent mandated the publication of the Roman Catechism. Promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1566, it has been confirmed by one sovereign pontiff after another. Thus in 1905, when Pope St. Pius X decreed the catechetical instruction to be given in the Catholic world, he mandated that the basis of this instruction should be the Roman Catechism. In dealing with the fifth commandment of the Decalogue, this fundamental catechism of Catholic doctrine declares:

There are some exceptions to the extent of this prohibition to killing. The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the state is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent life (The Fifth Commandment, 4).

In the twentieth century, Pope Pius XII provided a full doctrinal defense of capital punishment. Speaking to Catholic jurists, he explained what the Church teaches about the authority of the State to punish crimes, even with the death penalty.

The Church holds that there are two reasons for inflicting punishment, namely "medicinal" and "vindictive." The medicinal purpose is to prevent the criminal from repeating his crime, and to protect society from his criminal behavior. The vindicative is to expiate for the wrong-doing perpetrated by the criminal. Thus reparation is made to an offended God, and the disorder caused by the crime is expiated.

Equally important is the Pope's insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church's teaching on "the coercive power of legitimate human authority" is based on "the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine." It is wrong, therefore "to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances." On the contrary, they have "a general and abiding validity." (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).

Behind this declaration of the Vicar of Christ is a principle of our Catholic faith. Most of the Church's teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium. There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.

Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.

Certainly Christianity, like Christ, is to be merciful. Certainly Christians are to be kind and forgiving. But Christ is God. He is, indeed loving and in fact is love. But He is also just. As a just God, He has a right to authorize civil authority to inflict capital punishment.

You can access Fr. Hardon's archives HERE



There is also wonderful story about the graces offered to souls on death row




+JMJ+

Friday, April 1, 2016

VHE VI: Dietrich von Hildebrand critiques Fr. John Hardon's catechism


As you may know, I am a huge proponent of both Fr. John Hardon and Dietrich von Hildebrand, so when I came across a letter in which one critiqued the other, I felt the need to make it better known. The article is kind of a follow up to the article on Fr. Hardon's own critique of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but this time the tables are (charitably) reversed:

The article originally appeared in the Remnant and Christian Order, but I found the text onl8ine at the Fatima apostolate HERE

A Word of Caution

by Dietrich von Hildebrand



"I HAD looked forward to Jesuit Father John A. Hardon's Catholic Catechism in the hope that it would be not only faithful to Catholic Dogma, but also filled with an authentic Catholic ethos. After reading the book, I am reluctantly forced to say that I am somewhat disillusioned. I feel it my duty, therefore, to write the following words of criticism in order to warn the reader that, side by side with many beautiful and true parts in the "Catechism", there is to be found a spirit of compromise with an imaginary "modern man" and, as a result, certain concessions which seem to have no other justification than the desire to be "up to date".

It goes without saying that, compared with the heretical Dutch Catechism, Father Hardon's book gives us much to rejoice about. Regarding the fundamental articles of faith, such as the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the ascension, there is absolutely no trace of any "progressive" interpretation, no dishonest shunning of a clear and unequivocal profession of revealed truth. But if we think of the fatal spiritual trends which now fill the air and have unfortunately spread even to the Church, if we consider the devastated vineyard of the Lord, we cannot but deplore the book's seeming blindness to the dangers of these trends.

It is unfortunate that Father Hardon makes Vatican II the basis of his "Catechism". He forgets that this Council has been officially designated as strictly pastoral by the very Fathers of the Council and by the Holy Father himself. It does not, and indeed it cannot, depart in the slightest way from any de fide teaching of any previous Council, including above all the Council of Trent and Vatican I. His "Catechism" does not restrict itself to the defined dogmas of the Church; it is not simply an introduction or a summary and concise explanation of de fide teaching, such as we find in Denzinger. This being so, it was incumbent upon the author to emphasize the radical difference between the unchanging doctrine of the Church on the one hand, and the pastoral and administrative decisions on the other; which latter can, in principle, be revoked without the slightest prejudice to consistency or claims to infallibility. But there is nowhere any emphasis upon this radical difference. The fact that the author makes Vatican II, and even many subsequent administrative changes, the basis for his "Catechism" causes the book to be a kind of apologetic work for the actual state of the Church today and for everything which has been either officially introduced — such as the Novus Ordo of the Mass — or is simply allowed — such as Communion in the hand in many European countries.

Pervading the book, therefore, is the imaginary "modern man", to whom the Church must adapt the message of Christ — certainly not in its substantive content, but in its form. On page 441, we find the following words about the liturgy:

"The Council's extensive doctrine on the liturgy marks a turning point in the history of Roman Catholicism. It is a courageous response to the expectations created by an evolutionary age, and a timely answer to the demands for increased light and strength in the communitarian age. On both counts, the liturgy offers great promise to help the Church progress, according to God's design, and to preserve the Church, in Christ's words, as a kingdom that is not of this world."

There are several questionable statements in this short passage. First, the changes in the liturgy are presented as progress. This implies that the Novus Ordo is superior to the Mass of St. Pius V; likewise that the changes in the rites for the seven sacraments are progress. It implies that relative to the needs of our time the older liturgy, whether in the Mass or the sacraments, was defective and stood in need of improvement. I challenge these implications, especially when they are presented in a catechism, as doctrine. We are obliged by no article of faith, by no principle of loyalty, to affirm that the new liturgy constitutes progress. If indeed we are to obey such administrative changes in the liturgy, as long as they do not conflict with our conscience, we are in no way obliged to approve of them. It is fully consistent with the teaching of the Church to expect, and to hope, that the Church in the future will return to her former liturgy. Even though the Novus Ordo was introduced for supposed pastoral reasons, the unchallengeable fact is that it has coincided with a sharp drop in Sunday Mass attendance. And would anyone claim that it has strengthened faith in Christ and in the doctrines of the Church? That it has deepened the love of Christ? As of now the changes all point to a pastoral disaster. One cannot be accused of disloyalty to Christ for simply noting this. Indeed, it would seem that loyalty to Christ demands that we face up to it. When a ship runs aground, loyalty to the Captain is no reason for not sounding the alarm.

A grave error lies in the notion of "an evolutionary age" — as if it were something positive to which the Church must conform. Does the author consider it progress, an awakening to true reality, that Teilhard de Chardin's unfortunate ideas about evolution fill the air? Does he not see that the prevailing tendency to submit everything, even truth — even divine truth! — to evolution amounts to a diabolical undermining of revealed truth? Truth is not truth if it is ever changing. The "courageous response" called for is precisely the opposite of yielding to evolutionary mythologies.

Another serious error concerns our "communitarian age". Again this is presented as a positive thing which calls for an appropriate response by the Church. But the "communitarianism" of our age is really a horrible collectivism, and this, too, has invaded the sanctuary of the Church. This collectivism blinds us not only to the unfathomable value of each individual person, but also to the true idea of community. Does Father Hardon seriously believe that our age is marked by genuine community, that in medieval times or in the Counter-reformation there was less sense of true community than today, when Communism has conquered much of the world? Collectivism is the deadly enemy of Christian revelation. Supernatural community is possible only in Christ and through Christ. Only when we forget everything else and are completely absorbed in Holy Communion can we reach true supernatural union with other members of the Mystical Body of Christ. Only in the direct adoring love of Christ can we attain true charity towards our neighbor. It is false to say that we discover Christ in our neighbor; rather must we say that in Christ alone do we find our neighbor! Yet all this is completely foreign to the "communitarian" spirit of today, with its idolatry of the collective.

It is an easy step to move from praising putative qualities of our age to the heresy of adapting religion to man. In the Renaissance Cardinal Cajetan condemned this heresy in words that should be burned into our consciousness: "Man must be adapted to religion, not religion to man."

But Father Hardon seems to go even further. On page 454 we read:

"Changes in the Church's liturgical customs are not only the result of prudent adaptations to the times or modifications of external practices in order to increase the people's devotion and vitalize their active participation in divine worship; they are also sometimes the outgrowth of a genuine development of doctrine that calls for corresponding expression in appropriate liturgical forms."

Does the author really believe that the aim of the Novus Ordo is to increase faith in the Real Presence of Christ at the Consecration? During the Consecration of the Precious Blood, the words "mysterium fidei" have been eliminated. Does Father Hardon believe this change is really the outgrowth of a greater faith in transubstantiation? Further, would he say that the obvious weakening of faith in transubstantiation is itself an outgrowth of a "genuine development of doctrine in the Church"?

It behooves us to ask whether the decisive changes in the rite of Mass are not rather due to ecumenism than to any genuine development of doctrine. The outstanding German theologian Georg May, in a very fine article in the German review Una Voce, pointed out that no one can overlook the Protestantization of the liturgy. The architects of Church policy have tried to eliminate everything that might possibly separate us from the Protestants. Father Hardon even notes this with approval in that part of his "Catechism" dealing with ecumenism. One wonders why he does not link this very ecumenism with the changes in the liturgy. Here are his words, page 243:

"On the practical level this means that Catholics should avoid any words, judgments or actions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do. Positively, they should engage in dialogue with separated brethren through discussion, co-operative action, and corporate prayer. Such dialogue presumes study and the desire to learn how the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants worship, what they believe, and how their allegiance to Christ has affected their lives."

The above passage is sad to contemplate. Here is a Roman Catholic Catechism whose author certainly intends to oppose liberal and progressive trends and to be strictly orthodox. Yet he says that Catholics must avoid words, judgments and actions which do not correspond to what other Christians believe. This attitude reflects not ecumenism, but rather the fatal disease which I call "ecumenitis". Let us recall the recent Eucharistic Congress in Melbourne, Australia. Cardinal Knox, anticipating the suggestion of Father Hardon, purposely omitted the great Eucharistic procession so as not to offend the Protestants he had invited to participate. Indeed, eliminating the procession was one of the conditions of their presence at the Congress! Can we fairly call this consistent with genuine ecumenism? If we have real Christian love for our Protestant brethren, we must have the desire to see them find the one, true, authentic Christian faith. True love can only seek to have the individual Protestant convert to Catholicism. During my long life I have met innumerable ardent converts from Protestantism to Catholicism. (I am myself a convert, though from only a weak and merely formal Protestantism). But not a single convert I have known was ever converted by public dialogues between Catholics and Protestants; still less by Catholics who tried to make any compromises with Protestantism.

At the end of the chapter on ecumenism, Father Hardon states:

"One of the main reasons historically for Christian disunity was the disloyalty to Christ among those who called themselves Catholics."

This historical thesis is more than ambiguous. The birth of Luther's sola fides thesis is in no way caused by the "disloyalty" of Catholics in the Renaissance. As deplorable as this disloyalty is — especially the moral corruption among the hierarchy — it is impossible to claim that being scandalized by this immorality led to a theology in which only faith counts and all morality has no bearing on the salvation of man. The being scandalized by the disloyalties in Rome would be hypocritical in a man who said: "Sin as much as you will, but have an unshakable faith". Is the abolition of priesthood and monastic life the response to the disloyalty of Catholics?

And has the author forgotten the role of the princes and kings who enforced Protestantism? "Cuius regio eius et religo". Does he believe that Henry VIII's separation from Rome was caused by indignation about the disloyalty of Catholics?

Has the author forgotten that, in the same year of Luther's famous thesis, 1517, the "Oratory of Divine Love" was founded by St. Cajetan in Rome — a real reform!

Speaking of ethics, on page 284, Father Hardon quotes blasphemy and theft as being immoral under all circumstances. How can he place blasphemy and theft in the same category? Blasphemy is always morally evil — but taking another person's property belongs to a completely different category. It is legitimate and even morally good if it is the only way to save a man from starvation."


Also, I forgot to post the most recent interview on the Eric Metaxas Show with Lady Alice so here it is:



Eventually i will cut and paste this out but for now this will have to do

Thursday, March 10, 2016

What was Father Hardon's role at Vatican II

There were so many players in the work of Vatican II for better or for worse. Father Hardon, being a Jesuit, was obedient to his his vows in complete obedience to the Petrine Office.

Give a listen to the short 2 min clip and if you are scandalized at all I would ask that you realize the context is similar to Pope Leo XIII doing everything he could to reconcile the Anglicans in his time.



Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Updated 12/23: Fr. Hardon on the new catechism and more

It seems like the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) is constantly touted as the norm for teaching the faith.  This goes unchallenged by just about everyone, but it is interesting that Fr. Hardon took issue with the text:

http://catholicism.org/49274.html



Update is part II


Something similar happened with the Youcat,  but not to the extent of a Father Hardon questioning the text.  The authors of this youth catechism even got Pope Benedict to endorse it... but as you will find listening to this talk there are some real issues




The solution is simple,Cardinal Burke reminded us recently of the Catechism of Pius X

"St. Pius X saw with clarity how religious ignorance not only leads individual lives, but also to the decay of society and a lack of balanced thinking in the most serious problems," said Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura at event surrounding the Catechism of St. Pius X 100 years after its publication, by the Kulturkreis of John Henry Newman on the 24th of May.  It was organized in Seregno.

Read the rest HERE

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Fr. Hardon was almost a martyr? And saved Sisters in the process? You bet!

So, i had never heard this story before and I am guessing you have not either.

Father Hardon prevented a gang of Russians from pillaging a Missionaries of Charity building.

Its worth the listen:




+JMJ+

Monday, July 13, 2015

7/13: New Father Hardon Videos

Below are a few new videos i put together last week.  More will be coming soon including a story of a meeting between Fr. Hardon and Cardinal Ratzinger.  Enjoy!




















Friday, February 27, 2015

New Fr. Hardon videos: Equal devotion to the Bible and Eucharist, Martin Luther's accusations against Christ, Odor of Sanctity, and The Calvinism of John D. Rockefeller

It's been a while since I uploaded new Fr. Hardon videos on specific topics, so I give you some new ones:

Fr. John Hardon S.J. on whether equal devotion should be given to the Bible and the Eucharist




Fr. John Hardon S.J. on the evil accusations made by Luther about Jesus Christ



Fr. John Hardon S.J. on what is an Odor of Sanctity?




Fr. John Hardon S.J. on John Rockefeller and how Calvinism influenced his predestination ideas


Thursday, May 8, 2014

Fr. Hardon rebukes Von Balthasar

I came across this audio the otherday, and since this remains a hot topic I have put it on YouTube to be shared.  He also mentions Fr. Fessio S.J. seeking his (Fr. Hardon's) approval for publishing Von Balthasar's works for Ignatius Press (you will find his answer to Fr. Fessio surprising):



I have also included some more videos on Topics Fr. Hardon Covered below




Monday, April 28, 2014

New Fr. John Hardon videos for your enjoyment

Below I have posted a few more topics that Father Hardon addressed in some of his talks which you can find in their entirety on The Real Presence Website, which is involved with his canonization process.

Also take the time to read his works and support his cause for canonization if you feel called to.  The official page for this is: http://www.hardonsj.org/


On the issues with the modern ecumenical movement: On the Anglican hierarchy and the issues related On the Methodist/Pentacostal hierarchy and related issues:


+JMJ+

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

New Fr. Hardon videos for your further education

I uploaded a few more audio clips on YouTube where Servant of God Fr. John Hardon S.J. takes a few questions from his audience:

What does the word "Mass" mean in liturgical terminology?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxmbmyPftII

When is the sacred host consecrated or not valid?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgCZK9V0GiE

What is the Churches teaching on Evolution?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCZYK3jf3BE

+Fr. John Hardon, Servant of God Pray for us!+

Monday, October 14, 2013

Fr. John Hardon takes your Questions

In a soundbite culture its hard to get people to listen to or read information that will be helpful to them in knowing and defending something as complex as the Catholic Faith.

I have seen some attempts to simplify the issues for such a culture from a Youtuber going under the alias Dragamedood.  His site deals with a couple things Catholic, but his approach lately seems to be focused on challenging atheism.

I hope to provide short Catholic answers coming from the one and only Fr. John Hardon S.J. whose cause for canonization is in its beginnings.



Here are a couple videos to begin with:

On protestant communion, and potential graces therefrom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJZDiRRqzw

On the Real Environmental Crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asc4l6a7hfY

On Priestly Celibacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y44ac-3Nuuo

On the heresies present in "Amazing Grace"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqkjEZXF9Y0

Im sorry the videos wouldnt embed...I dont know why they wont

+JMJ+