Post edited 3:35 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:37 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:41 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:45 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:53 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:59 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:04 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:06 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:10 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:16 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:21 pm - September 26, 2009 by saintstephen

The Islamic motivation in the Al Quaida group recognized as the cause of 911 is entirely religious in it’s objective of “Martyrdom” by death for Allah.

If an Al Quaida dies, then he has achieved the goal of Martyrdom and so they assume to have won, so the way to win this war is to make certain that not even one Al Quaida dies.

I have formulated a plan which when executed properly will ensure an American victory and final peace.

The key weapon is psychological and works immediately and decisively and believe it or not, it is a voice recording of a baby crying. Using sound recording equipment to reproduce the sound in high definition digital mastered cd can then be “played” through a 1000 watt speaker system to project the sound to any area that the speakers are pointed.

Taking the speakers and sound system to cave areas where Al Aquaida are hiding, the soldiers line up with weapons loaded only with tranquilizer pellets ready to fire on sight. The recording is played of the baby crying and any man who hears it will have one of two reactions: A good man will come out of the cave to try to comfort the child to stop crying and a bad man will come out of the cave to kill the child out of anger that his position is revealed.

When Al Quaida come out of the cave looking for the child crying then the soldiers tranquilize them and cuff them for containment [remember they cannot die or they win by Martyrdom] so they must be taken alive.

Technology has invented the radio transmitter and this transmitter is then embedded into the Al Quaida to track their every movement in a similar manner that naturalists use transmitters to track the movement of endangered wildlife.

The Al Quaida then can be interrogated and those most harmful contained in a facility for their own safety and those considered less harmful can be easily tracked by embedded transmitter by radio frequency any where in the world to locate them should any further disruptions occur later. Before release and during containment all Al Quaida would be required to study the full text of the Koran until they mastered the essence of that faith which is and of itself “peace” and peaceful. The Koran Catechism Study Group would decide which Al Quaida had truly become religious and peaceful by panel decision of their top religious leaders of Islam.

Any prisoner refusing to convert to “true” Islam would be required to peel potatoes and iron and press dress uniforms for the French Foreign Legion for the rest of their days.

As the Pink Panther [the famous French Inspector Clouseau] would say, “case clo–sed” and I could go on from there to receive a kiss on either cheek from the President of France Nicholas Sarkozy and receive the French medal of honor while pigeons lands on my head outside the Eiffel Tower in town’s square to the song of the national anthem of France and President Obama attending also. Click on the link to hear the Nation Anthem of France: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

Click on this link to hear my theme song: “The Pink Panther” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..hHwnrlZRus

Post edited 7:32 pm - September 27, 2009 by saintstephen

Warren Jewell said:

Post edited 1:05 pm - September 27, 2009 by Warren Jewell

---

Lordy, SS, when you have a fantasy . . .

And, as an idea, it just may be more Pink-Pantherian and Clouseau-ist than you would like.

Warren, The Catholic faith is also called to peace yet if misinterpreted the advice of Christ read only today was, “If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. Better to enter heaven with one foot than go to Gehenna with both feet”.

The Koran calls Islamists to peace in essence although misinterpreted both the Koran and the Bible in the hands of extremists leads to murder of American soldiers and abortionists respectively.

This leads us back to the topic of who interprets Scripture and how is it interpreted. The Catholic faith interprets to establish Doctrine which is taught by the Magistracy to faithful Catholic while that same Scripture is misinterpreted by certain extremist protestants to become a mandate to kill abortionists and to cut off feet literally.

The Islamist religious leaders are generally respected in Muslim countries as authoritative interpreters of the Koran and in that capacity they keep the “peace”. The Islam extremists of course misinterpret the Koran to mean death to all who are not followers of Allah and death for the sake of Allah is Martyrdom.

That is why the pigeons landing on my head revealed the solution to this paradox of misinterpretation to find a solution through Pink Pantherism and the genius of Inspector Clouseau.

The Catechism corrects Catholic interpretations of Scripture. What catechism corrects Muslim interpretation of the Koran?

And the most profound question asked by the Inspector [Clouseau] is this: “Does an intelligence quotient have any effect on learning”?

We must find the answer to this question in order to clo-sed the case.

Many moons ago on the CE forum one night when the moon was full and the wolves howled there was a Catholic discussion of what comprises Catholic Martyrdom. One camp maintained that an American soldier dropping his body on a grenade constituted Martyrdom for Christ while another camps suggested that dying for the cause of Christ should be a primary consideration when declaring and endowing Sainthood on a Catholic who dies for the faith. This discussion I do not recall being resolved either although I would maintain that misguided interpretation of Catholic Doctrine and Scripture would lead one to believe that Martyrdom consists of falling on a grenade.

In the same vein of thought, I also maintain that Martyrdom for Allah in the Islamic Koran is also misguided interpretation when there is lacking the consideration of the entire text of the Koran and who is the interpreter and how is the interpretation authorized in Islam, by leaders of the faith or by some fellow hunkered down in a cave in Pakistan reading by firelight in the dark of night with his cellphone shut off so that his location is not revealed?

Saintstephen:

The topical post to which you refer ended almost exactly two years ago. It was “Altruistic or Suicidal” and the last post was by Fishman on 14 September. It didn’t really resolve because someone appeared to take it personally and the whole conversation devloved into uselessness.

In Christ,
Michael

Post edited 9:21 am - September 29, 2009 by Michael

[Edited to repair hyperlink]

Saintstephen:

Thank you for your service.

When you say:

Kolbe was obviously a Catholic Priest and martyr for the faith in the fact of his affiliation with the faith whereas soldiers who fall on grenades first of all have not professed faith in anything except their uniform.

I agree in part and disagree in part. Certainly a non-Catholic who falls o a grenade will not be considered a martyr in the Canon because they have not professed the True Faith. But, a Catholic may be so honored. Just like St. Kolbe, the witness to the faith given by the charitable act of “giving one’s life for a friend” might be enough to begin the process of canonization. Whether that act in itself is enough to declare one a martyr for charity is for the Church to decide.

There is an interesting CE story on just this topic here.

As for the classification of religious affiliation: I don’t know how it was during the Vietnam era, but that information is not classified. If it were, a service member in uniform at an off-base mass would be breaking the law. A person can have it on his dog-tags if he so desires. However, it is recommended by DoD and The Red Cross that individuals not place affiliation on dog-tags. In case of capture POWs may be subject to mistreatment based on their religion. Individuals in combat areas should not attend services off-base, for their own safety, and prudence would certainly dictate that, if done, they don’t do so in uniform.

In Christ,
Michael

Saintstephen:

Two items to address.

Myself and about 20 other Catholic were singled out for special services as consecrated extraordinary ministers of Last Rite with instructions to anoint men wounded and still living.

This particular issue was addressed in late 2007 in a prior iteration of the CERT. And I hesitate to address it again as it caused such consternation before. Suffice it to say that, at least from Trent forward, the “proper” (meaning “only” v. “ordinary”) minister of Extreme Unction is a priest or bishop (there is never an extraordinary minister of the Sacrament). A layman, or even a deacon, performing the action confers not a Sacrament but, at best, a sacramental. While a pious practice and, one would hope, providing some modicum of comfort to the afflicted (and perhaps a reminder to perform a perfect act of contrition), it is not a valid Sacrament. Any attempt to consecrate a layperson to this specific task holds no canonical, ecclesial, or theological validity. It would equate to a bishop attempting to ordain a woman to the priesthood; the bishop can go through all of the motions, but without effect. The only appropriate action a lay person can perform with respect to the dying is to bring him Viaticum, comfort him, and say prayers of commendation. Only the priest or bishop can anoint the individual so that he receives the grace of the Sacrament.

I’m genuinely sorry if the person “consecrating” you left you with the understanding that the anointing you provided was Sacramental in nature; a true Last Rite.

As to the primary argument:

…love dictates we save our lives for the sake of our families who depend on us over giving our life as so much grenade explosive matter to [hypothetically] save the life of a comrade.

I would say that the logical extension of your argument is that Fr. Kolbe should have saved himself in order to provide for the further care of souls in the Sacraments versus offering himself in place of another. The similar argument could be made, since I have a wife and five children, that if one is about to be hit by a car “love” demands that I do nothing for that child since, to paraphrase Spock, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the one.” But I don’t believe that this is the case. Military citations for deeds of this sort almost always concede that the individual acted “above and beyond the call of duty;” a recognition that something outside of both military training and the instinct for self-preservation is at work during those few moments in which the action is taken.

Did you read the article I linked to above? Similar MoH citations can be found for the conflict in which you fought as individuals did save the lives of others through selfless sacrifice of their bodies and their lives, though in all likelihood, they received the same training as you did. No, such acts are not always effective; munitions are made to do maximum damage in a minimum of packaging. I’ve been in combat against both military and para-military combatants and will not minimize the amount of damage that any projectile can do (and Depleted Uranium is “the gift that keeps on giving.”) However, neither will I minimize the miraculous that can be done by our God in an event where one sacrifices himself to save another, nor the graces which He may pour on the family of one so sacrificing.

I and all my fellow Catholic Army military combat friends relied heavily on these “Catholic faith” tactics to avoid the near occasion of death.

I thought you said you were a Marine here. No?

In Christ,
Michael

Post edited 3:38 pm - September 30, 2009 by Michael

Saintstephen:

I’m going to tread cautiously here, because I believe that one of us has “bad gouge,” (to use a Navy term).

Regarding a Lay Person’s “Homily”

Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS) addressing abuses in the ligurgy and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) are very clear on the subject.

GIRM 66: The homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant…[or entrusted] to a concelebrating priest or occassionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. [Emphasis mine]

Never - as used above - is an unqualified word. It admits of no extraordinary circumstance. Similarly RS 65, 74, and 161 spell out who may give a homily and, if a lay person provides commentary, when it may be done - and it may never be termed a homily or performed at the time a homily would usually occur. In particular, RS 65 says that

It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the Eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

Also, the USCCB received a regocnitio for Canon 766 on Lay Preaching, but the instruction is also unequivocal:

The diocesan bishop will determine the appropriate situations in accord with canon 772§1. In providing for preaching by the lay faithful the diocesan bishop may never dispense from the norm which reserves the homily to the sacred ministers (c. 767§1; cfr. Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, 26 May 1987, in AAS 79 [1987], 1249). Preaching by the lay faithful may not take place within the Celebration of the Eucharist at the moment reserved for the homily. [Emphasis mine]

Archbishop Flynn, of Minneapolis/St. Paul, ended the practice in your archdiocese prior to his retirement.

All support Canon Law where it states:

767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.

Regarding the Faculty of Anointing of the Sick

First, I believe you may mean “licity” or “leeway” versus “levity.”

Your WW III hypothetical is OK as it is in the power of a bishop to ordain a man to the priesthood, or even, I suppose in extremis to the office of bishop absent a method of communicating that necessity to the approving body in the Vatican. But conferring the totality of orders or admitting one to the order of presbyter or deacon is entirely different from investing one with a limited faculty that is proper to Holy Orders alone. That would be like the bishop you mention giving you limited ability to consecrate the Eucharist in dire circumstances or (still as a layman) consecrate someone as bishop if he should die.

You’ll have to point me to “Canon Law to Military Bishops.”

As I said before, I entered this argument with some trepidation. Rather than continue it, I would simply suggest that when you have your audience with the Archbishop, you refer the question to him.

Regarding the Grenade Question

I submit that there is no operative guidance in the catechism, canon, or doctrine that requires “express permission.” If that were the case, to follow this premise to its logical conclusion, any married service member entering a war zone or area of active combat would require such permission - this is not the case.

In fact, the only “doctrine” that I can think that would have guidance over the subject is the “Doctrine of Double Effect” (DDE). The catechism is clear on the subject of Suicide (2280-2283). However, DDE in this case would mitigate the stringent interpretation of “suicide.”

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

Protecting the life of another is a “good act;” it is not an indifferent act.

2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

The individual’s primary action is not to kill himself - rather it is an attempt to protect the lives of those around him. The individual in question in a directly voluntary manner seeks to protect others from injury or death. That, in his view, the only way of effecting that is to shield them with his own body is indirectly voluntary. Though the individual may reasonably foresee his own death, he is not intending it.

3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

The individual is not in the position of a “dutiful suicide,” where he is given the choice of killing himself to allow his comrades to go free. “Kill yourself or I kill everyone in this room,” is not covered by DDE because killing oneself to allow others to go free is a good result (freedom) from a bad effect (intentional suicide) - the two do not flow from the same cause.

4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

Although this point can certainly be argued between people of good will, my Catholic formation leads me to believe that saving the life of another through a sacrifice of mine allows one to see my faith (John 15:13) and prepares me to enter into the Beatific Vision (Matt. 25:40).

(The conditions above come from The New Catholic Encyclopedia p. 1021)

I would add finally that we are all called to martyrdom (witness to the Faith) - the clergy no more than you or I.

I’ve taken a lot of time to prepare this response so I hope that you will attempt to address all of the issues I put forth, excepting the Anointing of the Sick portion, which I indicated that I have no further interest in pursuing.

In Christ,

Michael

Saintstephen:

…you can quote Catechism, Doctrine and Canon from now until the cows come home and what prevails over teaching quote is the power of the keys.

I believe you attribute too much to the “power of the keys.” By your understanding, then, a Bishop may anoint a chimp to Holy Orders, consecrate Pizza and Beer to confect the Eucharist, or Baptize with a half-empty can of warm Diet Coke if there is a “dire circumstance.”

Canon Law, Doctrine, Dogma, Discipline, and the Magisterium set boundaries on that which bishops may legally or validly do. The law includes those items which may rightly be delegated or changed, those which may not, and those which cannot.

Father Kolbe is the witness which answers the granade question in the precise decision he made to replace a family man with himself indicating that a Priest does in fact have greater requirement to Martyrdom.

There was never a question of the man for whom Fr. Kolbe took the place being a martyr. His was a random selection. Your post is non-responsive.

In Christ,
Michael

Post edited 7:40 pm - October 1, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

Post edited 6:04 pm - October 1, 2009 by Michael

---

Saintstephen:

If you are saying that the bishop in question acted inapropriately, frivolously and with inconstancy to the Magisterium, then I might agree.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, No I am saying the Bishop acted appropriately and I am saying that you have no authority or place to judge him or accuse him of any fault whatsoever, unless you are the Pope and I know you are not.

Here is the link you seek: http://www.milarch.org/ The Most Reverend Timothy Paul Broglio

Should you contact him you may tell him this:

I was called to formation by my Company Commander [along with about 20 Catholic soldiers in my camp] who was accompanied by a very large man who appeared to be a Colonel in my base camp of Dong Ba Thin, Republic of Vietnam in the year 1970.

After the usual formation roll call and salute we were put at ease by the Bishop Colonel [I do not recall his name] who then explained that he could not be at the side of every fallen comrade and that we faithful Catholic soldiers could and would at any given time be at the side of a fallen comrade and that voluntarily we could receive ordination from the Bishop to minister Last Rite.

The Bishop gave each of us a leaflet with the approved prayers to keep on our person and explained the procedure for Last Rite to this effect: ask the soldier if he can speak, if so ask him if he has anything to confess. If he cannot speak, ask him to nod if he is sorry for his sin. Then read the prayers to him and while tracing the sign of the cross upon the forehead we say I anoint you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Rest in peace.

The Bishop then ordered us to assume a prayerful position to which we all fell to our knees with hands folded in prayer and the Bishop came directly to each of us, laid his hands upon our head and prayed then making the sign of the Cross.

The Bishop then thanked us for voluntary bravery in the cause of Christ and wished us well and safe from harm. Then the Bishop Colonel called us to attention, saluted us, turned and left.

Michael said:

I look forward to continuing the grenade argument, when you are ready.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, The reason I have not quoted Canon is because you and I are not ordained to teach it. The Bishop is ordained to teach Canon and to interpret it and this fully explains why you continue to misinterpret the Canon. You still need to question the military Bishop as I offered you the opportunity as you obviously need the guidance of the Church to come to a conclusion in this matter.

I will give you two Canons to read if you wish although you need to understand that you alone cannot interpret the Canon, you need the Church or you set yourself apart as protestant and not a faithful Catholic.

For the Canon re: Bishop authority read Canons 224-402

For the Canon re: Falling on a grenade read Canon 1397

The Canon specifically condemns the taking of one’ life and sets up the Catholic who does so for excommunication de facto. It is obvious that falling on a grenade for whatever reason is taking one’s life.

To give one’s life in Martyrdom, another person persecuting you must take your life from you by force and specifically in hatred of Christ while the Martyr must die for the cause of Christ.

As I already pointed out to you there is practically no way to ascertain the intent of the person who falls on a grenade to determine his affinity with Christ also the probability of saving anyone by falling on a grenade is 0 at the onset, in fact the probability of immediate death by intent to homicide is 100% which is in direct violation of Canon 1397 for any faithful Catholic impudent enough to make that presumption without Spiritual discernment of the Church.

Post edited 8:09 pm - October 2, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael, You demanded Canon from me and so I gave you Canon Law so why fault me for honoring your request.

We are at an impasse and so I will state my final response as this:

I will submit myself to any Bishop’s request and prudent judgment so long as he is validly ordained a Bishop and has no edict of excommunication against him.

I will revert to my original judgment of “falling on a grenade” as homicide and not Martyrdom based on my experience with artillery and the effect of grenade metal fragments penetrating the man who falls on it and hitting any man near the scene within a radius of 50 ft approximate and killing them also as 0% probability of saving anyone life with the intent to shield them from fragmentary debris struck at high velocity.

In my opinion Canon Law does not affect my decision in this case until notified by a Bishop that in his opinion falling on a grenade is Martyrdom in the cause of Christ. So far I have no Bishop’s opinion and so the only way you may persuade me to take your side is at the consultation with a valid Bishop of the Catholic Church.

As the Pink Panther [Inspector Clouseau] would say, “case clo-sed” to the tune of the National Anthem of France.

You may watch the Pink Panther blowing himself up with a grenade here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..hHwnrlZRus