Weaknesses of the American President

Hollande has made a statement, and David Cameron has published a statement regarding the hostages in Algeria..

Obama has said nothing, up to 5:54 GMT, Thursday

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21063370

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/16/world/mali-unrest/index.html?hpt=iaf_c2

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/world/africa/algeria-militants-hostages.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Continuing the discussion on infallibility

I am continuing an examination of infallibility and am backtracking to the decrees of Vatican I in order to clarify from where the Church stands on mysteries and knowledge.

Too many people go to private revelation for knowledge first, which is dangerous. It is the pursuit of Gnosticism. The person who is not rational will not read what I am sharing below.

Sadly, the pursuit of private revelations has created a confusion about infallibility. Natural reason does not constitute a threat to Divine Revelation, nor does Divine Revelation threaten natural reason. The same is true for the laws of the Church such as Canon Law. Canon Law cannot be ignored at peril of one's soul. Why?

The purpose of Canon Law is to define the pastoral as well as doctrinal truths of Catholicism and aid each person, including priests, to live out the Faith rationally.

Here are some more ideas to help this conversation. More in the next posts.

Chapter 4. On faith and reason from the Decrees of the First Vatican Council http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%204.%20On%20the%20infallible%20teaching%20authority%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

1. The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that
   • there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct
     • not only as regards its source,
     • but also as regards its object.
2. With regard to the source,
   • we know at the one level by natural reason,
   • at the other level by divine faith.
3. With regard to the object,
   • besides those things to which natural reason can attain,
   • there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God
     • which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
   • Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29] , comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30] , he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31] . And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32] .
4. Now reason,
   • does indeed
     • when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly,
   • achieve
     • by God's gift
   • some understanding,
     • and that most profitable,
   • of the mysteries,
     • whether by analogy from what it knows naturally,
     • or from the connexion of these mysteries
       • with one another and
       • with the final end of humanity;
   but reason
   • is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries
   • in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object.
   • For
     • the divine mysteries,
     • by their very nature,
     • so far surpass the created understanding
     • that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith,
     • they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity,
     • as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord,
     • for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33] .
5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since
   • it is the same God
     • who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and
     • who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
6. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
   • The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either
     • the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or
     • unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
7. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false [34] .
8. Furthermore the church which,
   • together with its apostolic office of teaching,
   • has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith,
   • has
     • by divine appointment
       • the right
       • and duty
     • of condemning
     • what wrongly passes for knowledge,
     • lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit [35] .
9. Hence all faithful Christians
   • are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith,
     • particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they
   • are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for
    • on the one hand right reason
      • established the foundations of the faith
      • and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things;
    • on the other hand, faith
      • delivers reason from errors and
      • protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.
11. Hence, so far is the church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For
    • she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather
    • she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.
12. Nor does the church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method:
    • but while she admits this just freedom,
    • she takes particular care that they do not
      • become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or,
      • by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and
    • engender confusion.
13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36] .

4. On faith and reason

• 1. If anyone says that
  • in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that
  • all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles:
  let him be anathema.
• 2. If anyone says that
  • human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that
  • they may not be forbidden by the church:
  let him be anathema.
• 3. If anyone says that
  • it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
  let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see.

Poll Results

59% of the readership of this blog as from ages 0-49. That is the Millennials and Gen Xers.

38% are the Boomers.

Now, partly this is because of the use of technologies.

It could that the blogging community is younger.

Whatever the reasons, these numbers are in the generations that have not been catechized correctly.

I shall continue blogging as I have been, but I am open to suggestions.

from Mein Kampf

Yesterday, I was talking to some great Catholic Millennials about propaganda. And, today in America, we have an example. Father Z drew this to my attention. That is, Obama declared "Religion Freedom Day"..http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/pres-obama-declares-no-kidding-religious-freedom-day

Here are some quotations for you to ponder, Americans, as we slide into unreality and deceit from the top down.

Thanks to wiki, as I am in a hurry today.

Mein Kampf contains the blueprint of later Nazi propaganda efforts. Assessing his audience, Hitler writes in chapter VI:

"Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."^[5]

As to the methods to be employed, he explains:

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."

Statistics on Sex Selection

Not Just China and India: Sex Selection Abortions Spreading Around the World

Posted on January 9, 2013 by Amy at Elliot Institute

http://afterabortion.org/2013/not-just-china-and-india-sex-selection-abortions-spreading-around-the-world/

Experts Say Selection Abortions Are Increasing
in the U.S. and Europe

Efforts to expose and combat gendercide and sex-selection abortion have mostly focused on countries such as India and China. But now experts are reporting that this problem is spreading in Europe and the U.S., too.

According to a recent article by Elena Ralli at New Europe Online:

According to a recent study by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), in Albania, 112 boys are born for every 100 girls, while in Kosovo and Montenegro the figures stand at 110 and 109 boys per 100 girls respectively. …

In countries like Albania and Macedonia these EU laws [against sex selection abortion] are being ignored since female births keep on decreasing[;] however, women’s rights activists also see a trend towards gender selection in EU member states as well.As a result, Danish media have indicated the existence of “abortion tourism” to Sweden, where terminating a pregnancy is legal until the 18th week. Moreover, studies from Norway and Britain suggest a gender imbalance among immigrants from Asian cultures, especially among second and third children.

In a November 2011 resolution, the Council of Europe voiced its concern over the rising trend of prenatal gender selection. But the EU has no legal say on the matter since abortion law is decided and adopted by individual states alone. As a result, EU cannot press for improvements in candidate nations either.

And in an article at National Review, population control expert Steve Mosher, president of thePopulation Research Institute, offers some shocking information on sex selection abortions in the United States:

[Dr. Sunita Puri],  who practices in the Bay Area, wanted to find out why so many immigrant Indian women in the United States were so eager to find out the sex of their unborn children, and why so many of them choose abortion when they found out they were carrying a girl.

What she discovered over the course of 65 interviews conducted over several years profoundly shocked her. Fully 89 percent of the women carrying girls opted for an abortion, and nearly half had previously aborted girls.

Puri’s report, published in Social Science and Medicine this last April, makes for grim reading. Women told Puri of their guilt over their sex-selection abortions, how they felt that they were unable to “save” their daughters. Even the women who turned out to be carrying boys this time around could not shake their remorse over having earlier aborted daughters in this deadly game of reproductive roulette.

They also made clear that they were not free actors when it came to reproductive “choice.” Many, when it was learned that they were carrying girls, became the victims of family violence. Some — in an effort to make them miscarry — had been slapped and shoved around by angry husbands and in-laws, or even kicked in the stomach. Others were denied food, water, and rest in order to coerce them into aborting their unwanted girl babies.

Mosher also sited research showing that sex-selection abortion “is widely practiced among certain Asian-American communities:”

Jason Abrevaya of the University of Texas analyzed U.S. birth data and found unusually high boy-birth percentages after 1980 among later children (most notably third and fourth children) born to Chinese and Asian-Indian mothers. Moreover, using maternally linked data from California, he found that Asian-Indian mothers are significantly more likely both to have a terminated pregnancy and to give birth to a son when they have previously only given birth to girls.

Columbia University economists Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund also found clear evidence of sex-selective abortions in what they called “son-biased sex ratios,” that is, a higher ratio of boys to girls than would occur in nature. Looking at the sex ratio at birth among U.S.-born children of Chinese, Korean, and Asian-Indian parents, they found that first-borns showed normal sex ratios at birth. But if the first child was a girl, the sex ratio jumped to 117, and if the first two children were girls, then the sex ratio jumped to 151. That is to say, for every 151 boys, there were only 100 hundred surviving girls. The rest had been eliminated.

This is not just misogyny; it is misogyny that kills.

As Mosher explains, legislation has been introduced in Congress to ban sex- and race-selection abortion in the United States. The Elliot Institute has also developed model legislation that would hold abortion clinics liable for failing to screen for coerced and unwanted abortions in any situation, and to screen women for factors that put them at risk for psychological problems after abortion. Laws based on this legislation have been passed in Nebraska and South Dakota.

from LifeSiteNews and please support them....

Colorado Supreme Court upholds ban against use of graphic abortion photos at a church

BY JILL STANEK

• Wed Jan 16, 2013 13:45 EST
• Comments (16)

I read with alarm a story at CNS News today that the Colorado Supreme Court is allowing an injunction to stand that prohibits pro-lifers from publicly displaying graphic images of aborted babies at a Denver church.

The Court’s reasoning demonstrated the height of judicial hypocrisy. It ruled signs such as Exhibits 43 and 9, right,  “cause ‘psychological harm’ to children under 12,” according to CBN.

This from the same legal system that authorized the murders of the photographed children.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! 

This obvious free speech violation is serious in and of itself, but the injunction also carries ramifications for other pro-life activists around the country.

(That said, a prolonged public debate on just what it is about abortion images that makes them “gruesome,” as the Court called them, would certainly be worthwhile.)

There was no more detail in the story, but pro-life attorney Rebecca Messall was cited as “vow[ing] to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court,” and with the help of friend Leslie at The Passionate Pro-Lifer, I was able to speak with Rebecca.

Rebecca provided the backstory: For several years a group of pro-life activists had picketed “abortion neutral” St. John’s Episcopal Cathedral in Denver every Palm Sunday, when its pastor led an outdoor procession. The group sometimes conducted a follow-up picket on Easter.

Here are photos of the procession inside the church courtyard, and then as the procession continued on public property, where pro-lifers stood…

In between Palm Sunday and Easter 2005 the church filed for an emergency injunction to stop the protesters from showing images. These included a bloody doll nailed to a cross.

Pro-life activists Ken Scott and Clifton Powell were named in the injunction. It was they who sued and have been fighting a legal battle ever since.

Last week the state Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Court of Appeals to stop the protesters from displaying images at the church. No specific images were cited, just “large posters or similar displays depicting gruesome images of mutilated fetuses or dead bodies in a manner reasonably likely to be viewed by children under 12 years of age attending worship service and/or worship-related events at plaintiff church,” according to Court documents.

“We argued that our clients had a right to be on public property speaking on matter of public concern,” Rebecca, pictured left, told me.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a similar case, Snyder v. Phelps – the Westboro Baptist protesters.

Rebecca said in theory the injunction is just against graphic protests at this church.

“But the Court is agreeing with the concept that a private party can see protesters on public property and say they don’t want to see them,” said Rebecca. “Since when can private parties enjoin you because they find your message offensive, while claiming vague psychological harm to children but submitting no evidence?”

Rebecca reiterated her clients will file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. “The idea behind the First Amendment is to motivate change by protecting speech people don’t like,” explained Rebecca. “The world is obviously trying to suppress graphic photos of abortion, because it would motivate people to change.”

[Photos via Ken and Jo Scott]

Later today

I shall look at the poll results and comment later today. Not my poll below, but a pretty one at that......

More on Predestination

As I am travelling, I am placing some selections from Thomas Aquinas to start conversation on his ideas on Predestination. Some of Augustine's ideas are here included by Aquinas.  

I shall comment on this soon, as soon as "things" settle down..................................................

ARTICLE I

This question treats predestination.

In the first article we ask:

Does predestination belong to knowledge or will?

[Parallel readings: S.T., I, 23, aa. 1, 3-4; I Sent., 40,1, 2; C.G., III, 163; In Rom., c. 1, lect. 3 (P. 13:7a, 82).]

Difficulties

It seems that it has will as its genus, for

1. As Augustine says,’ predestination is the intention of being merciful. But intention belongs to the will. Consequently, predestination also belongs to the will.

2. Predestination seems to be the same as the eternal election referred to in the Epistle to the Ephesians (1:4): “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world”—because the chosen are the same as the predestinated. Now, according to the Philosopher, choice belongs rather to appetite than to intellect. Hence, predestination belongs more to the will than to knowledge.

3. But it was said that election comes before predestination and is not the same as it.—On the contrary, will comes after knowledge, not before it. But choice pertains to the will. If, therefore, choice comes before predestination, then predestination cannot belong to knowledge.

4. If predestination belonged to knowledge, then it would seem to be the same as foreknowledge; and thus whoever foreknew the salvation of a person would predestine him. Now, this is false; for the prophets foreknew the salvation of the Gentiles; yet they did not predestine it. Therefore.

5. Predestination implies causality. Now, causality does not have the nature of knowledge, but rather the nature of will. Consequently, predestination belongs more to the will than to knowledge.

6. The will differs from a passive potency in this respect, that the latter refers only to effects taking place in the future, for we, cannot speak of passive potency in relation to things that are or have been, whereas the will extends equally to both present and future effects. Now, predestination has both present and future effects; for, as Augustine says: “Predestination is the preparation of grace in the present and of glory in the future.” Therefore, it belongs to the will.

7. Knowledge is not related to things in so far as they are made or to be made but in so far as they are known or to be known. Now, predestination is related to a thing as something that must be effected. Consequently, it does not belong to knowledge.

8. An effect receives its name from its proximate cause rather than from its remote cause. For example, we say that a man is begotten by a man, instead of saying by the sun, which also begets him. Now, preparation is the effect of both knowledge and will, but knowledge is prior to the will and more remote than it. Consequently, preparation belongs more to the will than to knowledge. But, as Augustine says: “Predestination is the preparation of someone for glory.” Therefore, predestination pertains rather to the will than to knowledge.

9. When many motions are ordered to only one term, then the entire co-ordinated complex of motions takes the name of the last motion. For example, in the drawing out of a substantial form from the potency of matter, the following order is had: first, alteration, then generation. But the whole is called generation. Now, when something is prepared, this order is had: first, movements of knowledge, then movements of the will. Consequently, the whole should be attributed to the will; therefore, predestination seems to be especially in the will.

10. If he of two contraries is appropriated to something, then the other contrary is removed from it in the highest possible degree. Now, evil is appropriated especially to God’s foreknowledge, for we say that the damned are known beforehand. Consequently, His foreknowledge does not have good things as its object. Predestination, however, is concerned only with those good things that lead to salvation. Therefore, predestination is not related to foreknowledge.

11. When a word is used in its proper sense, it does not need a gloss. But; whenever the sacred Scripture speaks of knowledge of good, a gloss is added saying that this means approval. This is evident from the Gloss on the first Epistle to the Corinthians (8:3): “‘If any man love God, the same is known by him’—that is, he is approved by God”; and from the Gloss on the second Epistle to Timothy (2:19): “‘The Lord knoweth who are his’—that is, God approves him.” In its proper sense, therefore, knowledge is not related to good things. But predestination is related to good things. Therefore.

12. To prepare belongs to a power that moves, for preparation is related to some work. But, as has been said, predestination is a preparation. Therefore, it belongs to a moving power and so to the will, not to knowledge.

13. A reasoning power modeled upon another reasoning power imitates it. Now, in the case of the human reason, which is modeled upon the divine, we see that preparation belongs to the will, not to knowledge. Consequently, divine preparation is similar; and the conclusion is the same as before.

14. Although the divine attributes are one reality, the difference between them is manifested in the difference in their effects. Consequently, something said of God should be reduced to that attribute to which this effect is appropriated. Now, grace and glory are the effects of predestination, and they are appropriated either to His will or His goodness. Therefore, predestination also belongs to His will, not to His knowledge.

To the Contrary

1. The Gloss on the Epistle to the Romans (8:29), “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinates,” says: “Predestination is God’s foreknowledge and preparation of benefits...”

2. Whatever is predestined is known, but the opposite is not true. Consequently, what is predestined belongs to the class of things that are known; hence, it is included in the genus of knowledge.

3. A thing should be placed in the genus to which it always belongs, rather than in a genus which is not always proper to it. Now, the element of knowledge always belongs to predestination, because foreknowledge always accompanies it. The granting of grace, however, which takes place through the will, does not always accompany predestination, since predestination is eternal while the bestowal of grace takes place in time. Predestination, therefore, should be placed in the genus of knowledge rather than in that of will acts.

4. The Philosopher places habits of knowing and doing among the intellectual virtues, for they belong more to reason than to appetite. This is clearly what he does in the case of art and prudence, as can be seen in his Ethics.” Now, predestination implies a principle of doing and of knowing, since, as is evident from the definition given, predestination is both foreknowledge and preparation. Predestination, therefore, belongs more to knowledge than it does to the will.

5. Contraries belong to the same genus. But predestination is the contrary of reprobation. Now, since reprobation belongs to the genus of knowledge, because God foreknows the malice of the damned but does not cause it, it seems that predestination also belongs to the genus of knowledge.

REPLY

Destination (from which predestination is derived) implies the direction of something to an end. For this reason, one is said to destine a messenger if he directs him to do something. And because we direct our decisions to execution as to an end, we are said to destine what we decide. For example, Eleazar (2 Maccabees 6:19) is said to have “destined” in his heart not to do “any unlawful things for the love of life.”

Now, the particle pre-, when joined to a word, adds a relation to the future. Consequently, to destine refers to what is present, while to predestine can also refer to what is future. For two reasons, therefore, predestination is placed under providence as one of its parts, namely, because direction to an end, as pointed out in the preceding question,” pertains to providence, and because providence—even according to Cicero—includes a relation to the future. In fact, some define providence by saying that it is present knowledge bearing upon future event.

On the other hand, predestination differs from providence in two respects. Providence means a general ordering to an end. Consequently, it extends to all things, rational or irrational, good or bad, that have been ordained by God to an end. Predestination, however, is concerned only with that end which is possible for a rational creature, namely, his eternal glory. Consequently, it concerns only men, and only with reference to those things that are related to salvation. Moreover, predestination differs from providence in a second respect. In any ordering to an end, two things must be considered: the ordering itself, and the outcome or result of the ordering, for not everything that is ordered to an end reaches that end. Providence, therefore, is concerned only with the ordering to the end. Consequently, by God’s providence, all men are ordained to beatitude. But predestination is also concerned with the outcome or result of this ordering, and, therefore, it is related only to those who will attain heavenly glory. Hence, providence, is related to the initial establishment of an order, and predestination is related to its outcome or result; for the fact that some attain the end that is eternal glory is not due primarily to their own power but to the help of grace given by God.

Therefore, just as we said above that providence consists in an act of reason, like prudence, of which it is a part, because it belongs to reason alone to direct and to ordain, so now we say that predestination also consists in an act of reason, directing or ordering to an end. However, the willing of an end is required before there can be direction to an end, because no one directs anything to an end which he does not will. This is why the Philosopher says that a perfect prudential choice can be made only by a man of good moral character, because moral habits strengthen one’s affections for the end which prudence dictates. Now, the one who predestines does not consider in a general way the end to which his predestination directs him; he considers it, rather, according to the relation it has to one who attains it, and such a person must be distinct in the mind of the one predestining from those persons who will not achieve this end. Consequently, predestination presupposes a love by which God wills the salvation of a person. Hence, just as a prudent man directs to an end only in so far as he is temperate or just, so God predestines only in so far as He loves.

Another prerequisite of predestination is the choice by which he who is directed to the end infallibly is separated from others who are not ordained to it in the same manner. This separation, however, is not on account of any difference, found in the predestined, which could arouse God’s love; for, as we read in the Epistle to the Romans (9:11-13): “When the children were not yet born nor had done any good or evil... it was said... ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’” Consequently, predestination presupposes election and love, and election presupposes love. Again, two things follow upon predestination: the attainment of the end, which is glory, and the granting of help to attain this end, namely, the bestowal of the grace that pertains to the call to be among the predestined. Predestination, therefore, has two effects: grace and glory.

Answers to Difficulties

1. The acts of the soul are such that a preceding act in some way is virtually contained in the act that follows. Since predestination presupposes love, an act of the will, the notion of predestination includes something that belongs to the will. For this reason, intention and other elements belonging to the will are sometimes put into its definition.

2.Predestination is not the same as election, but, as we said above, it presupposes election. This is why the predestined are the same as the elect.

3. Since choice belongs to the will, and direction to the intellect, direction always precedes election if both have the same object. But if they have different objects, then there is no inconsistency in election’s coming before predestination, which implies the existence of direction. As election is taken here, however, it pertains to one who is directed to an end; and the acceptance of one who is to be directed toward an end comes before the direction itself. In the case stated, therefore, election precedes predestination.

4. Even though predestination is placed under the genus of knowledge, it adds something to knowledge and foreknowledge, namely, direction or an order to an end. In this respect, it resembles prudence, which also adds something to the notion of knowledge. Consequently, just as every person who knows what to do is not thereby prudent, so also not every one who has foreknowledge thereby predestines.

5. Even though causality does not belong to the notion of knowledge as such, it belongs to that knowledge which directs and orders to an end; and direction of this kind is not proper to the will but to the intellect alone. Similarly, understanding does not belong to the nature of a rational animal in so far as it is animal but only in so far as it is rational.

6. Knowledge is related to both present and future effects, just as the will is. On this,basis, therefore, it cannot be proved that predestination belongs more to one than to the other. Yet predestination, properly speaking, is related only to the future-as the prefix pre- indicates, because it implies an ordering to the future. Nor is it the same to speak of having an effect in the presentand of having a present effect, because whatever pertains to the state of this life—whether it be present, past, or future—is said to be in the present.

7. Even though knowledge as knowledge is not related to things in so far as they are to be made, practical knowledge is related to things under this aspect, and predestination is reduced to this type of knowledge.

8. In its proper sense, preparation implies a disposing of a potency for act. There are, however, two kinds of potencies: active and passive; consequently, there are two kinds of preparations, There is a preparation of the recipient, which we speak of when we say that matter is prepared for a form. Then there is a preparation of the agent, which we speak of when we say that someone is preparing himself in order to do something. It is this latter kind of preparation that predestination implies; for it asserts simply this, that in God there exists the ordering of some person to an end. Now, the proximate principle of ordering is reason, and, as is clear from above, its remote principle is will. Consequently, for the reason given in the difficulty, predestination is attributed more to reason than to will.

9. A similar answer should be given to the ninth difficulty.

10. Evil things are ascribed as proper to foreknowledge, not because they are more proper objects of foreknowledge than good things, but because good things in God imply something more than mere foreknowledge, while evil things have no such added implication. Similarly, a convertible term which does not signify an essence appropriates to itself the name of property, which belongs just as properly to the definition, because the definition adds a certain priority.

11. A gloss does not always mean that a word has not been used in its proper sense. Sometimes a gloss is necessary merely to make specific what has been stated in a general way. This is why the gloss explains knowledge as meaning knowledge of approval.

12. To prepare or direct belongs only to powers that move. But to move is not peculiar to the will. As is clear from The Soul, this is also a property of the practical intellect.

13. In so far as preparation made even in a human reason implies an ordering or directing to an end, it is an act proper to the intellect, not to the will.

14. When treating a divine attribute, we should not consider only its effect but also its relation to the effect; for, while the effects of knowledge, power, and will are the same, still, as the names of these attributes imply, their relations to them are not. Now, in so far as predestination is directive, the relation implied by predestination to its effect is more logically said to be a relation of knowledge than a relation of power or will. Consequently, predestination is reduced to a type of knowledge.

Answers to Contrary Difficulties

1.-2.-4. We concede the other arguments presented here. One might reply to the second, however, by pointing out that not everything that is found in more things is thereby a genus, for it might be predicated of them as an accident.

3. Even though the granting of grace does not always accompany predestination, the will to grant grace always does.

5. Reprobation is directly opposed, not to predestination, but to election, for He who chooses accepts one and rejects another and this is called reprobation. Consequently, as the word itself shows, reprobation pertains more to the will. For to reprobate is, as it were, to reject—except that it might be said that to reprobate means the same as to judge unworthy of admittance. However, reprobation is said to belong to God’s foreknowledge for this reason, that there is nothing positive on the part of His will that has any relation to sin. He does not will sin as He wills grace. Yet reprobation is said to be a preparation of the punishment which God wills consequent to sin—not antecedent to it.

A Sun-Dog in England

OK, I have seen sun-dogs in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois, but this was a first.

I saw one in the sky above England on Wednesday. It was like the one in this photo.

That is how COLD it is here right now.

from wiki, a nice, easy to understand explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dog

Sundogs are made commonly of plate-shaped hexagonal ice crystals in high and cold cirrus clouds or, during very cold weather, by ice crystals called diamond dust drifting in the air at low levels. These crystals act as prisms, bending the light rays passing through them with a minimum deflection of 22°. If the crystals are randomly oriented, a complete ring around the sun is seen — a halo. But often, as the crystals sink through the air they become vertically aligned, so sunlight is refracted horizontally — in this case, sundogs are seen.

As the sun rises higher, the rays passing through the crystals are increasingly skewed from the horizontal plane. Their angle of deviation increases and the sundogs move further from the sun.^[4] However, they always stay at the same elevation as the sun.

Sundogs are red-colored at the side nearest the sun. Farther out the colors grade through oranges to blue. However, the colors overlap considerably and so are muted, never pure or saturated. The colors of the sundog finally merge into the white of the parhelic circle (if the latter is visible).

It is theoretically possible to predict the forms of sundogs as would be seen on other planets and moons. Mars might have sundogs formed by both water-ice and CO₂-ice. On the giant gas planets — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — other crystals form the clouds of ammonia, methane, and other substances that can produce halos with four or more sundogs.^[5]

Garrigou-Lagrange on Visions

My bold highlights

SUPERNATURAL VISIONS

Divine revelations sometimes take the form of visions and at other
times of words.

Supernatural visions are either sensible, imaginary,
or intellectual.

Sensible or corporal visions of our Savior, the Blessed Virgin, or the saints, are sometimes granted to beginners to detach them from worldly things. If the vision is common to a great number of persons, it is a sign that the apparition is exterior, without any certainty thereby that it is of divine origin.(32) If it is individual, the dispositions of the witness who declares that he has had it must be attentively examined and great prudence must be exercised.

The director will be able to recognize whether these apparitions are graces of God, by their conformity to the teaching of the Church and by the fruits which they leave in the soul. The soul itself should be very faithful in reaping the fruits of sanctity which God proposes by granting it these favors.

Those who are favored with apparitions of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints should render to the persons represented the honors due them, even though the apparition should be the result of an illusion of the imagination or of the devil, for as St. Teresa says: "Although a painter may be a wicked man, honor should none the less be paid to a portrait of Christ done by him." (33) These apparitions must never be desired or asked of God.

Imaginary visions are produced in the imagination by God or by the angels when a person is either awake or asleep. According to the Gospel, St. Joseph was on several occasions supernaturally instructed in a dream. Although the divine origin of a dream may be difficult to discern, ordinarily when the soul seeks God sincerely, He makes Himself felt either by a feeling of profound peace, or by events that confirm the vision; thus in a dream a sinner may be warned of the urgent necessity of conversion.

Imaginary visions are subject to the illusions of the imagination and of the devil.(34) We have three signs, however, by which to discern whether they are of divine origin: (I) when they cannot be produced or dismissed at will, but come suddenly and last but a short time; (2) when they leave the soul in great peace; (3) when they produce fruits of virtue, a great humility and perseverance in good.(35)

A divine imaginary vision, granted while a person is awake, is almost always accompanied by at least partial ecstasy (for example, the momentary loss of sight) so that the soul may distinguish the interior apparition from external impressions; (36) there is ecstasy also because a soul enraptured and united to God loses contact with external things.(37) No perfect imaginary vision occurs without an intellectual vision, which makes the soul see and penetrate its meaning: (38) for example, the former may concern the sacred humanity of Christ; the second, His divinity.(39)

Imaginary visions should not be desired or asked of God any more than sensible visions; they are in no way necessary to holiness.(40) The perfect spirit of faith and infused contemplation are of superior order and prepare the soul more immediately for divine union.(41)

An intellectual vision is the certain manifestation of an object to the intellect without any actual dependence on sensible images. It is brought about either by acquired ideas supernaturally coordinated or modified, or by infused ideas, which are sometimes of angelic order.(42) It requires, besides, an infused light, that of the gift of wisdom or of prophecy. It may refer to God, spirits, or material things, like the purely spiritual knowledge of the angels. The intellectual vision is at times obscure and indistinct, that is, it manifests with certitude the presence of the object without any detail as to its intimate nature. Thus St. Teresa often felt our Lord Jesus Christ near her for several days.(43) At other times the intellectual vision is clear and distinct; it is then more rapid and is a sort of intuition of divine truths or of created things in God.(44) It cannot be translated into human language.(45)

Intellectual visions, especially those caused by infused ideas, are free from the illusions of the imagination and of the devil; but at times what is only an over-excitement of the imagination or a suggestion of the devil (46) may be taken for an intellectual vision. The divine origin of these favors may be recognized from the effects they produce: deep peace, holy joy, profound humility, unshakable attachment to virtue.(47)

St. John of the Cross says: "By the very fact that this knowledge is communicated suddenly, independently of the will, it is useless for the soul to desire it . . . ; it ought simply to allow God to act when and how He wills. . . . These favors are not given to a soul which is attached to any good; they are the effect of a special love which God bears toward the soul which strives for Him in detachment and disinterested love." (48)

The loftiest intellectual visions, since they are inferior to the beatific vision, cannot attain the divine essence sicuti est, but only "by a certain manner of representation" due to infused ideas, as St. Teresa says.(49) In the opinion of a number of authors, (50) the intellectual visions that often accompany the transforming union are the equivalent of a special revelation that gives the soul the certitude of being in the state of grace and of predestination. St. John of the Cross even says, as we have seen: "In my opinion, the soul can never be placed in possession of this state [the transforming union] without at the same time being confirmed in grace." (51)

http://www.christianperfection.info/tta108.php

On the consequences of sin

People do not realize that there are consequences for sin.

Purgatory, hell, bad health sometimes from the stresses of sin, confusion, mental chaos, weakness of the will, and so on.

There are also consequences for national sins. If a nation moves away from God and enshrines serious sin in laws which are against natural law, there will be consequences.

Many people do not believe this. They do not believe that God will punish America, for example, for the murder of 52 million babies. They do not believe that states or even the nation which enacts civil marriage for same sex couples calls for punishment from God.

Here is the reminder.

Based on # 1867 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are:

(1) Wilful murder - the blood of Abel, [Gen. 4:10]

(2) The sin of the Sodomites, [Gen. 18:20; 19:13]

(3) The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, [Ex. 3:7-10]

(4) The cry of the foreigner, the widow and the orphan, [Ex. 20:20-22] and

(5) Injustice to the wage earner. [Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4]

Plus, the list from Fr. Z., last year, from the Douay Catechism:

Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649:

CHAPTER XX – The sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance
Q. 925. HOW many such sins are there?
A. Four.
Q. 926. What is the first of them?
A. Wilful murder, which is a voluntary and unjust taking away another’s life.
Q. 927. How show you the depravity of this sin?
A. Out of Gen. iv. 10. Where it is said to Cain “What hast thou done? the voice of the blood of thy brother crieth to me from the earth: now, therefore shalt thou be cursed upon the earth.” And Matt. xxvi 52, “All that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.”
Q. 928. What is the second?
A. The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.
Q. 929. What is the scripture proof of this?
A. Out of Gen. xix. 13. where we read of the Sodomites, and their sin. “We will destroy this place because the cry of them hath increased before our Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them,” (and they were burnt with fire from heaven.)
Q. 930. What is the third?
A. Oppressing of the poor, which is a cruel, tyrannical, and unjust dealing with inferiors.
Q. 931. What other proof have you of that?
A. Out of Exod. xxii. 21. “Ye shall not hurt the widow and the fatherless: If you do hurt them, they will cry unto me, and I will hear them cry, and my fury shall take indignation, and I will strike thee with the sword.” And out of Isa. x. 1, 2. “Wo to them that make unjust laws, that they might oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people.”
Q. 932. What is the fourth?
A. To defraud working men of their wages, which is to lessen, or detain it from them.
Q. 933. What proof have you of it?
A. Out of Eccl. xxxiv. 37. “He that sheddeth blood and he that defraudeth the hired man, are brethren,” and out of James v. 4. “Behold the hire of the workmen that have reaped your fields, which is defrauded by you, crieth, and their cry hath entered into the ears of the Lord God of Sabbath.”

Spot the Bias

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Look here and tell me what is missing in the list of subjects.

Sign up for Patriot Voices on line

Rick Santorum writes on gun control:

As a strong supporter of the second amendment, I take issue with the Obama administration's effort to take more control of our lives on the gun issue, when we already have reasonable accommodations in place.  We have seen time and time again, when law-abiding citizens have used their legal firearms as a means of self protection; our government cannot stand in the way of that.  

President Obama is trying to ban the sale of many types of rifles, including those used for hunting, and he wants to limit your ability to defend yourself if a criminal invades your home and attacks your family.

Things are moving at lightning speed in Washington, so I need your urgent financial support to help with our massive grassroots effort to stop Obama from ramming through this gun control legislation.

This is the most serious attack on the 2nd Amendment in American history.

The American people have to rally NOW.  What President Obama and the liberals are trying to do is unconstitutional and wrong. 

The President is trying take away your right to hunt and defend yourself.  This has nothing to do with protecting kids or reducing gun violence.

Sign up for his http://www.patriotvoices.com/

Garrigou-Lagrange on Private Revelations: Part One

Garrigou-Lagrange helps us understand private revelations. Here is the first of a few quotations on separate posts.

The second post is on visions. I hope people can discern the distinctions here. 

... we must distinguish two kinds of private revelations: (I) revelations properly so called reveal secrets about God or His works; (2) revelations improperly so called give a greater understanding of supernatural truths already known by faith.(27)

I) Revelations manifesting secrets to us are much more subject to illusion. Without doubt God sometimes reveals to the living the time that remains to them on this earth, the trials that they will undergo, what will happen to a nation, to a certain person. But the devil can easily counterfeit these things and, to gain credence for his lies, he begins by nourishing the spirit with likely things or even with partial truths.(28) St. John of the Cross says: "It is almost impossible to escape his wiles if the soul does not immediately get rid of them, because the spirit of evil knows well how to assume the appearance of truth and give this appearance credit." (29) "In order to be perfect there is, therefore, no reason to desire these extraordinary supernatural things. . . . The soul must prudently guard itself against all these communications if it wishes, in purity and without illusions, to reach divine union by the night of faith." (30) No words could make a clearer distinction between these extraordinary supernatural things and infused contemplation, and more effectively show that infused contemplation is normal in the perfect.

2) Revelations improperly so called, which give us a greater understanding of revealed truths, are associated with infused contemplation, especially if they concern God Himself and do not stop at particular things, but profoundly penetrate His wisdom, infinite goodness, or omnipotence. In The Ascent of Mount Carmel St. John of the Cross says on this subject: "This profound loving knowledge is, moreover, accessible only to a soul in union with God. Such knowledge is this union itself, for it has its origin precisely in a certain contact of the soul with the Divinity. Consequently it is God Himself who is felt and tasted, though He is not perceived manifestly in full light, as He is in glory; but the touch is so strong and so profound, by reason of the knowledge and attraction, that it penetrates the substance of the soul. It is impossible for the devil to interfere in this and to deceive by imitation, for nothing is comparable to it, or approaches it in enjoyment and delights. These touches savor of the divine essence and of eternal life, and the devil cannot counterfeit such lofty things. . . . In regard to the other perceptions, we said that the soul should abstract itself from them, but this duty ceases in the case of this lofty loving knowledge, since it is the manifestation of that union to which we are trying to conduct the soul. All that we have taught previously on the subject of despoliation and of complete detachment was directed toward this union; and the divine favors which result from it are the fruit of humility, of the desire to suffer for the love of God, with resignation and disinterestedness as to all reward." (31)

King Obama

From the Washington Examiner on line on Wednesday--is anyone else concerned?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2518781#.UPctvR26eE1

Sen. Marco Rubio R-Fla. criticized President Obama moments ago for his speech promoting gun control and abusing his executive powers. The president initiated 23 executive orders during his press conference, vowing to “use whatever weight this office holds” to promote his agenda.

In a statement, Rubio warned that Obama’s use of executive power was troubling.

“Making matters worse is that President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress,” he said. “President Obama’s frustration with our republic and the way it works doesn’t give him license to ignore the Constitution.”

Rubio added that Obama’s proposals would not have actually prevented the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut and were threatening the Second Amendment rights of legal gun owners.

“President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence,” Rubio said.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-23-executive-orders-actions-gun-control.html

Contrary to what you may have heard today — from Bloomberg News,Huffington Post, Salon, and a million other places — President Obama did not sign 23 executive orders at his gun-control event this afternoon. What he did was initiate 23 "executive actions." An executive action is a vague term that can refer to anything done by the executive (the president). Some of the items on the White House's list of 23 "executive actions" — such as "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health" and "Nominate an ATF director" — are more like personal priorities.

President Obama, in fact, didn't actually sign any executive orders today. He did issue three "presidential memoranda," which, respectively:

• direct federal law enforcement to trace all guns taken in federal custody in the course of a criminal investigation
• direct the Department of Justice to ensure that all applicable information from federal agencies is made available for background checks
• and direct the Department of Health to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."

So what's the difference between a "presidential memorandum" and an executive order? Not much! According to a 1999 Congressional Research Service report, they're executive orders in all but name:

Another executive tool which has raised many questions is the presidential memoranda. Although they possess a different title than executive orders, it appears as though these instruments are very much alike. Both are undefined, written instruments by which the president directs, and governs actions by, Government officials and agencies. They differ in that executive orders must be published in the Federal Register whereas presidential memoranda are similarly published only if the President determines that they have a "general applicability and legal effect." .... In at least one instance, a federal district court seemed to use the two terms interchangeably.