Dr. Mirus Tries To Defend The Indefensible

A few days ago Pope Francis made plain his intention to permit adulterers to seal their eternal damnation by committing sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist.  I wrote about that two days ago.  I don't know why Dr. Jeff Mirus tries to spin Pope Francis' mess in some sort of "positive" way, but he makes some logical gaffes in so doing.  He tries to set forth a hypothetical case of adultery being a venial sin only.  To wit: (begin quote)

"Very briefly, then, I would argue that the following is the most likely scenario in which the presumption that only venial sin is involved may be reasonably justified:

An invalidly married couple has had children together, who are still at home.

Either the man or the woman recognizes the sinfulness of the “marriage”, regrets having entered into it, and desires now to do what is right (which in this case would be for the parents to live as brother and sister while still caring for their children as mother and father in the same household).

The other party refuses to live as brother and sister.

The other party says he (or she) will leave the family if sexual relations are refused.

Hence the man or woman in question continues sexual relations, in effect under duress, to ensure that his or her children are not deprived of one parent.

Now, even if we argue that the morally correct course is to separate from the unrepentant spouse and trust in God, it is easy to see that—at the very least—this would be hard to discern and, even if discerned, there would be tremendous fear of depriving one’s children of a family setting which includes both their mother and their father."

(end quote)  I scarcely know where to begin, but here goes.

• Dr. John Lamont, in his own commentary published on Rorate Caeli, points out that the so-called "repentant" spouse is indeed acting voluntarily.  The difficulties of his/her choice do not compromise their free will.  The so-called "repentant" spouse isn't all that repentant.
• When evaluating the morality of a given act, the FIRST consideration must be to the nature of the act itself.  If the act is inherently immoral, all other considerations are moot.
• Those of us who are old enough remember from our catechism that ALL sins against the 6th commandment are mortal.  Temptations to the same are not mortal as they only become sin when consent is given.  If the so-called "innocent spouse" acquiesces to the meanie, he/she still gives consent.
• As an aside, one might wonder just what the "innocent spouse" would gain in such a scenario.  If the obdurate one threatens to leave the family if he/she is not gratified, what does that say about their own devotion to the children?  What kind of parent would he/she really be?  What kind of "family setting" is it when one spouse is essentially blackmailing the other spouse to commit mortal sin and damn their soul to hell?
• So far the conversation has been about those "rare, difficult" cases.  Well, remember the 1930 Lambeth Conference?  The Anglicans allowed for contraception only "for special cases".  We know how that turned out, don't we?  That's the plan here: allow sacrilege for those "hard" cases, and the camel's nose will be under the tent, never to be removed.

There are a number of folks who can't deal with the increasingly obvious fact that we have a pope who is not taking seriously his God-given charge to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  In fact, many of his words and actions seem designed to undermine it.  Dr. Mirus seems to be of that mindset.  

By the way - I'd also urge you to read the commentary from Robert Royal.

Now a word about comments.  Most folks know that I entertain most comments, provided they are respectful and honor the Church.  I will not entertain comments from those who won't entertain comments on their own sites, or who charge fees for the "privilege" of commenting.

Shining The Light Through Rose-Colored Glasses

Today's Vortex addresses why Catholic bloggers will continue to shine the light on clerical misbehaviors - despite the whining and pouting of those who insist upon wearing rose-colored glasses in the face of clerical mischief.  It is their evil, more than that of laity, that has so much potential to damage the church simply because of the authority they do wield.  Indeed, untold numbers of souls have been led astray by nonsense from clerics.  Witness the gays who now have reason to believe that their mortal sins are affirmed by Cardinal Dolan as a result of the St Patrick's day parade fiasco.  And yes, witness the millions who now believe adulterers will be allowed to commit the sin of sacrilege with Holy Communion thanks to the grotesque relatio released by Pope Francis.  Yes, I will continue to shine the light - despite the stubborn resistance of some to seeing the truth.  One such individual is Jeff Mirus - more on that below the video.



Mirus penned a piece recently, to which I link now.  I'll unpack a few salient points - but not all for I don't have time for that.

Let's look at the second paragraph.  Since you'll have it open in a separate browser window, I'll interject my comments in red throughout this copy.  "Every few weeks (or perhaps every few days), Pope Francis says something that annoys or even appalls those who like their Catholicism neat and tidy.  His "neat and tidy" quip is really quite condescending.  That's a cheap shot, Mr. Mirus - for shame!  At any rate, we prefer the faith being portrayed clearly and unambiguously, for the sake of poor souls who really do need the truth with no gimmicks for the sake of their eternal salvation.  Pope Francis seems to enjoy not only shaking things up (which he has admitted) but speaking colloquially, and therefore with less theological and pastoral precision than might otherwise be the case. My readers know that I don’t think this is nearly as dangerous as many do,  for those who are not oh-so-sophisticated to wade through sloppy presentations, the lack of theological precision can well damn them nor do I think Francis is attempting to push the Church in an unacceptable direction I cannot divine whether or not he's attempting to push the Church in a bad direction; regardless of his motives that is in fact what he's doing."

Let's look at this one.  "I don’t think Francis thinks in the categories of left and right, liberal and conservative, that so many Western Catholics use as a kind of ecclesiastical shorthand to categorize conflicts over doctrine, liturgy and moral principles. Rather, I think Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted, And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a BIG problem on its own, when so many don't know the basics of faith and morals.  Even bishops, as evinced by the nonsense from the Sin-Nod last October display ignorance of their faith.  In their case I hope it's ignorance, lest they be culpable of serious sins but is really fed up with clericalism and formalism (call it systemic rigidity or riskless ministry) which prevents the Church (in her members) from being profoundly evangelical and constantly engaged in sacrificial service to those who are materially, morally and spiritually poor. This does lead to misunderstandings, but those misunderstandings are  half due to our own inadequate categories of reflection  So what does Mirus call it when so many, of diverse perspectives and levels of Catholic knowledge, glean the same messages from the Pope?  When anyone attempts to communicate, he/she accepts the responsibility of communicating their message clearly.  It just isn't acceptable to blame the recipients of the message for repeated failures to communicate clearly."

Here Mirus shows evidence of swallowing the "god of surprises" kool-aid.  "In the challenge of love, God shows up with surprises…. So let yourselves be surprised by God: Don’t be afraid of surprises, afraid that they will shake you up.  Don't you think that depends on the nature of the particular surprise in question?  They make us insecure  Really?  Why should they?  but they change the direction we are going in. True love makes you “burn life”, even at the risk of coming up empty-handed."  Why this fetish regarding "surprises"?  Are we aware that God is immutable?  That His word doesn't change?  When we come across anomalies and are surprised by the same, maybe - just maybe!- that sense of "surprise" is really a warning from our good sense to stay away from the source of alarm.

As I said earlier, I don't have time to unpack this entire mess from Mirus (at least not in this post).  I will look at one last thing.  "We have a standing joke in my household. When I express an opinion about Pope Francis, my wife asks: 'How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?'"  I echo Mrs. Mirus' question, not only to Mr. Mirus but to all who refuse to take off their happy-clappy rose-colored glasses.

Dr. Mirus Disappoints Again

Dr. Jeff Mirus today released a piece on his CatholicCulture site entitled "We Can't Afford Children, Can We?"  This is an obvious attempt to lay upon good people who are concerned with out-of-control immigration a guilt trip akin to that of the guilt of abortion.  Dr. Mirus, if the attempt weren't so silly and clumsy, it would border on the unethical.

All he does in his two scenarios is basically describe two motivations for abortion and contraception, then asserts that they are analogous to our concerns for illegal immigration.  He doesn't really expound on any philosophical parallels.  It's somehow expected that the reader will passively assume that such must exist.  If the reader is an opponent of illegal immigration, he/she will be tempted to try to refute an argument that really doesn't exist and will expend much mental effort in a wild-goose chase.  It's quite an interesting debate tactic, one in which I've learned not to fall while debating real pro-aborts.

His last paragraph is his real blooper, where he in effect turns the Gospel of John into some progressive screed.  Let's explain this in black and white, shall we?  Jesus came to the Jews proclaiming the Gospel and Himself as the Messiah.  The Jews rejected Him as their Messiah.  How on earth does Mirus justify using this passage to pretend that the Jews declared Him "illegal"?  Does Dr. Mirus really think so little of the intelligence of his readership?

The only voice of sanity in that column is the comments of Ms. Agnes Day; more may appear after this post is published.  Thank you, Ms. Day.  Dr. Mirus, for your sake I hope you are indeed "wrapping this up".

Dr Jeff Mirus And His Immigration Quagmire - A Response

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture wrote a piece a few days ago entitled "Illegals Are not Immorals".  He elicited a large amount of criticism, much of it deserved.  In the wake of the criticism, he released this piece today entitled "More on Immigration: A Contemporary Case of Corban".  It seems that he still espouses two troubling positions.

He seems to think that national boundaries are mere conventions.  That simply isn't correct.  Just from a Biblical view, we read from Acts 17:26 (Paul preaching to the Athenians) "from one man He made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth, and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."

I too will quote Section 2241 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with some emphasis:  "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

If national boundaries are a mere convention, the "welcome" is rather superfluous, is it not?  No one needs to welcome me to walk on the public sidewalk for I do not require a "welcome" to be on property in which I have just as much ownership/stake as anyone else.  I'd like us to recall the situation last weekend in Kansas, when an "immigrant advocacy" bunch called Sunflower Community Action imperiously paraded onto the property of Jeff Kobach.  In reflecting upon this, it is no stretch to see how those folks could trespass upon a family's private property if they hold that such boundaries are mere "conventions".  Do we see the moral hornet's nest that arises when we start allowing sloppy thinking about boundaries?

But let me touch upon Mirus' second mistake which I think to be more troubling.  It is most evident in the first paragraph of the first article.  I quote: "Many Americans, especially conservative Americans, tend to be selective legalists. Despite their recognition of the falsity of some anti-life laws, they hold that the law confirms a sort of territorial moral exclusivity on citizens. This is one of many values which can arise from being culture bound. It typically creates a huge blind spot on immigration."  I don't know in what kind of circles Mr. Mirus travels, but I've never encountered that among my friends.  I will say this, though.  I for one am tired of being judged as being "hateful" or "xenophobic" or "having a blind spot" every time we suggest that our southern borders be secured; I know people in Texas who have suffered at the hands of the Mexican drug gangs who cross the borders with impunity, endangering their families.

When folks utter lines such as "we don't owe illegals anything", I suspect that they're speaking of benefits and social services that law-abiding citizens support with their hard-earned tax dollars while struggling to support their own families.  The statement might be artless and poorly worded, but it's uttered by people who frankly are being shafted by progressives and then being berated when they dare to raise protest.  They're frustrated and burdened, Dr. Mirus!  Will you please cut them a little bit of the slack that you demand that they cut to those who break our laws and add to their - our - burden?  At the very least, to accuse good people of "loving their own comfort and dominance" and "believing in Manifest Destiny (whatever the hell that is)" is unacceptable.  If you must spout condescension like that, please know that we will take exception.  Thank you.