Posted by Frenchie:
Last week, we posted this picture, without comment after an expose about freemasonry, and why it is wrong, and a grave sin for any Catholic to associate with freemasonry.
As the article made the rounds on our local social media, a proxy for one of the persons on this picture, asked in a condescending manner, if this was meant to be an indirect attack on his patron, an insinuation.
Let me be clear there is no insinuation, it is a direct statement about two individuals: Senator Joe San Augustin (D), and Senator Tony Ada (R). Both of them are considered at this time as leading candidates to become the next Governor of Guam. Both of them pretend and claim that they are devout Catholics, both of them apparently see no moral dilemma in the obvious double standard they are trying to get away with.
This site is a Catholic site; it treats subjects related directly or indirectly with Catholic issues on the island of Guam. Over the last 13 years we have covered issues far and wide from problem priests, to abortion, to mismanagement and everything in between
As we are an island officially Catholic at 80%, it is important that these two individuals advertising themselves as Catholic, but in fact being active in freemasonry, clarify their position.
You cannot be one and the other, at once.
Over the weekend the very good local Catholic website: Thoughtful Catholic, treated the issue, in a clear and concise way. You can read it
This is totally clear; there is no room for interpretation. You are either Catholic, or a Freemason. You CANNOT be both at once. Therefore, the question becomes why any of these two individuals, insist on showing up at mass, and taking communion, while they are clearly in a situation of grave sin? This situation is what the Church calls scandalous.
In the case of Senator San Augustin, who is a parishioner at our Lady of Lourdes Church in Yigo, I have personally witnessed several different parishioners on separate occasions over the last 4 years confront San Augustin about going to communion while wearing an oversized Freemason ring. On every occasion, the Senator was very flippant and dismissive, to the point that the former Pastor on several occasions made it very clear from the pulpit that being a freemason is being in a great state of Sin. To no avail. The Pastor even reached out to family members for an intervention, also without success. At the time the Apostolic Administrator (now Bishop of Chalan Kanoa) did not feel it was sufficient to intervene. Since then, the current parish administrator, does not appear to have taken any further step to address the problem. In fact, he has elevated Senator San Augustin's spouse to become a lecturer, which means the couple seats in the front row, while he continues to go to communion.
In the case of Tony Ada, it is not apparent that many people have been in the know, about this similar situation. But the problem here, might be even more controversial, because Senator Ada is a Knight of the Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. A prestigious Catholic Order created by Godfrey of Bouillon, the leader of the 1st Crusade. No communication here that has been noted. Apparently Msgr James who was the initiator of the Order in 2012, at the Cathedral, did an indirect admonition through the current Magistral Delegate of the Order, Rodney J Jacob. At this time, we do not know, if that admonition had any result. But the issue is extremely disturbing, especially for someone running for the Highest Secular Office of the Island. The apparent lack of judgment and morality is more than troubling for someone wanting to become our leader for the 21st century. Deceit and distortion are often affiliated with politics. That does not mean, we have to agree to it.
Let's see if either Archbishop Jimenes or our newly minted Exorcist will take the bull by the horns.
It would be logical for the Equestrian Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem to demand that Tony Ada, either resign as a Knight, and/or resign as a Freemason, then follow the process to be forgiven for his sins.
In any case, it is not a good way to start a political campaign for Governor
Amazing that these two public servants seem to have lost their moral compass. When we received the Sacrament of Confirmation, we committed to defend the Church, the bride of Christ Jesus. Tony Ada and Joe San Agustin seem to forget that and thus are mocking that commitment to God to defend his Church. . . Pride is a deadly sin, which leads to arrogance and defiance against God, that makes one believe they don't need God to live their lives. Sitting at Mass and receiving the Eucharist is scandalous and a grave sin. Yet they prefer to continue down a "hell hole" instead of being humble, admit their mistake, ask for God's forgiveness in confession through the Sacrament of Penance and resign from being a mason. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
ReplyDeleteWell anon at 9.47, you are nailing it right on the head. You obviously understand the issue, better than the senators
DeleteCalling people “lost,” “arrogant,” or on a “hell hole” path does not reflect Catholic charity or humility. Receiving Confirmation does not give us permission to judge the souls of others, nor does it make any layperson the gatekeeper of who is worthy to receive the Eucharist.
DeleteA Catholic’s relationship with God, and their examination of conscience before Communion, is between them and God. Not between them and a website. Not between them and commenters.
Using faith to publicly shame people is not defending the Church. It is turning the sacraments into weapons. A strong Catholic life is lived through personal integrity, prayer, and charity, not through condemning others from a distance.
Good luck.
DeleteIn an interesting development, another "Anonymous" on the previous post about freemasonry, has decided to bring contradiction to our opinion. This has led to an interesting exchange which I suggest respectfully you might want to consult. The plot thicken.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that this post is not really about explaining Church teaching. It is aimed at damaging the reputation of two public figures during an election cycle. Using religion as a weapon to attack people’s character does not help anyone understand the issue. It only creates division and turns faith into a political tool.
DeleteIf the goal is genuine discussion, it should be about facts and dialogue, not trying to tear down someone’s name for public gain.
Well you're right about one thing. The aim of this issue on this blog is NOT about "dialogue." Our aim is to do what JW has always done: to address issues that most of our clergy are too cowardly to address, whether it be denying communion to the most pro-abortion governor in the whole country, exposing decades of clerical sex abuse of hundreds of minors, the investigation and outing of Apuron's land scam which alienated millions of dollars in archdiocesan property to the Neocatechumenal Way, or addressing the reasons why Catholics can't be Masons. In fact, I am quite sure that you, and probably just about everyone else who is reading these posts have NEVER heard the Catholic Church's position on Freemasonry. So it's not your fault that you are a Mason. It's your pastors'. But now you know. I hope you get out of it. So I can vote for you.
DeleteIf the goal is not dialogue, then what you are doing is not teaching. It is simply attacking anyone who does not fit your narrative. Claiming that everyone who sees this differently is “uninformed” or “failed by their pastors” is not a position of strength. It is a way to avoid honest discussion.
DeleteMany Catholics understand the Church’s historical view. They are not confused, misled, or lacking information. They simply do not accept the idea that a person’s faith can be judged by another layperson on the internet. That is not courage. That is overreach.
Using past scandals and unrelated issues to justify targeting individuals today does not make the argument stronger. It only shows that the purpose here is to shame people, not guide them.
Faith is lived between a person and God. Reducing someone’s spiritual life to “leave this so I can vote for you” reveals the political motive behind the message. That has nothing to do with protecting the Church and everything to do with controlling the narrative.
Once again it is not your fault. We are probably close to the same age. I can tell because you have all the same arguments that I was fed, essentially “I”m okay, you’re okay.” What we have presented here on this blog is not a narrative, it is official Catholic teaching. If you wish to dissent (even though you will call it “interpret”), then that is your prerogative. I’m sure the governor says the same thing to herself as you do every time she goes up to receive communion. But speaking of the governor, her being elected twice should be an encouragement to you. Guam Catholics, at least the ones who vote, have demonstrated that Catholicism, especially official Catholic teaching relative to serious moral issues such as abortion, homosexual acts, and membership in groups condemned by the Church (such as yours), means nothing to them at the ballot box. In fact, as Guam’s elections continue to demonstrate, a public affront to Catholic moral teaching is a resume enhancement.
DeleteBy the way, you have demonstrated Protestantism perfectly.
Ultimately, I have no issue with anyone who chooses to be a Freemason. That's your choice, and you are free to make it. I don't think it's dangerous or hostile to Catholics, at least not in Guam. I'll let Frenchie handle the bigger picture.
DeleteHowever, I do have a problem with Catholics who believe they can - as Frenchie says - "have their cake and eat it too." In other words, Catholics who believe they can disregard official Catholic teaching as just "your view," or "one view."
"Peter has spoken" is what makes the Catholic Church different (and true) than any other religion. Catholicism has a central teaching authority: "You are Peter."
Unfortunately, and as far back as I can remember (I grew up in the wake of Vatican 2), clerics, religious, and Catholic authorities of every stripe have been doing their damndest to undermine that authority, if not actively - as they did after Humane Vitae, then passively by ignoring issues altogether - such as this one.
Our position on this issue, and as set forth on this blog, is that of the official position of the Catholic Church, and I would recommend that Catholics who are Masons heed it.
The Church has called membership in Freemasonry a "grave sin," and are prohibited from receiving Holy Communion. And to receive Holy Communion in a state of "grave sin" (mortal sin), is a sacrilege. That's a very dangerous thing. And even more dangerous to the clergy who ignore it.
I appreciate the calm tone here, but there is an important point you continue to overlook. A Catholic who understands Church teaching and still follows his conscience is not “having his cake and eating it too.” That is exactly how Catholic moral theology is designed to function. Conscience is not a loophole. It is part of the Church’s teaching authority itself, affirmed in the Catechism.
DeleteSaying “Peter has spoken” is not the same as saying that every disciplinary statement, from every era, in every historical circumstance, is equal to unchanging dogma. The Church has shifted, clarified, nuanced, and revisited positions throughout history. That is not disrespect. That is development of doctrine, something every theologian acknowledges.
You refer to the “official position” as if the matter has never been interpreted, debated, or refined. In reality, the Church’s language on this topic has changed several times across centuries, and its application has varied across countries. That alone proves that good Catholics can engage this question in good faith.
As for Communion, receiving in a state of sin is serious, but the Church also teaches that the individual must examine his own conscience before approaching the altar. That is between the person and God, not the person and a blog. Public declarations about other people’s souls do not strengthen the faith. They harm it.
You have every right to hold your view. I respect that.
But I will remain Catholic until the day I die, and nothing you have raised here contradicts the fact that a Catholic can live his faith fully, honestly, and faithfully while also being part of a fraternity that promotes moral living and service.
Strong faith does not require policing other people’s relationship with God. It requires living your own with integrity.
You keep repeating “official teaching” as if the matter has never required interpretation, never changed in tone, and never depended on context. Anyone who has actually studied the history of the Church knows that discipline, application, and theological understanding have developed in many areas. Treating every document from every century as frozen dogma is not how the Magisterium works.
DeleteA Catholic who forms their conscience honestly is not “ignoring Peter.” They are following the very process the Church requires. Oversimplifying a complex teaching into a slogan may sound firm, but it does not reflect the depth of actual Catholic theology.
You fit right in with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, et. al. Meanwhile, there is nothing "policing" about stating authoritative Catholic Church teaching. But have it your way. If you haven't done it already, though, I would counsel directly with a priest on this before continuing to receive communion, or even, given the gravity of the matter, the archbishop. If they give you the green light, then it's their fault, not yours.
DeleteTim, comparing everyone who disagrees with you to Pelosi or Biden is not theology. It is simply a way to avoid addressing the actual issue. You call your position “authoritative Church teaching,” yet your argument depends on ignoring the parts of Catholic teaching that place responsibility on a person’s conscience and on the guidance of their confessor.
DeleteTelling someone to consult a priest or an archbishop actually weakens your claim. If this were as absolute and straightforward as you say, you would not need clergy to verify it. The fact that you hand the matter to them, and then say that any mistake becomes their fault, shows that you are not defending Church authority. You are defending your own interpretation of it.
I don't "hand the matter to them," because I don't need to. And I don't need to because I'm not "interpreting" the teaching to my liking. I am recommending that YOU consult with clergy since you are "interpreting" it, so you may want to be sure.
DeleteTim, recommending that I consult clergy is perfectly fine, but it also proves my point. If this teaching were as absolute and uncomplicated as you present it, there would be nothing to “make sure” about. The moment you tell someone to seek guidance from a priest, you acknowledge that interpretation, context, and conscience are part of the process. That is exactly how the Church teaches Catholics to discern, and it is the part you keep leaving out.
DeleteI guess I have to say this again. No one needs to consult a priest on whether to have an abortion, engage in homosexual acts or an adulterous affair, murder, stealing, etc. - if that person accepts what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes and teaches - publicly teaches. But because you don't believe it and you choose to "follow your conscience," - which is a thoroughly protestant approach, you may want to consult a priest to allay your culpability if you're wrong. Not to do so, and to act in direct conflict with the the Church's authoritative teaching is the "pride" you accuse us of.
DeleteDear anon @ 9.01pm, as Tim noted, this post is not about dialogue, nor is it about damaging the reputation of 2 public figures.
ReplyDeleteThese are self inflicted wounds.
This post is about warning good Catholics, about the obvious contradictions of said public figures, pretending on one hand to be good Catholics, while being active members of an organization condemned unequivocaly by the Church.
Basically you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time. This site did not forced any of these public figures to claim being Catholics, while being freemasons. This post in particular underline the hypocrisy of such position , and warns Catholics about it. The choice for these public figures is fairly simple continue being freemasons, while pretending to be Catholics, therefore continue in a situation of grave sin, and face the consequences, both temporal or eternal; or realize the gravity of the situation and take appropriate steps, to truly return to the church
I understand your point, but it is very clear this post is not a neutral “warning.” It is built on one interpretation of Church teaching and used to label specific people as hypocrites. That is not spiritual guidance. That is public shaming.
DeleteFreemasonry today does not teach people to reject God or abandon their faith. Many Catholics around the world are Masons and still live active, sincere Catholic lives. Their relationship with God is shaped by their conscience, not by someone else deciding they must choose between two identities.
If the goal was truly to help Catholics, the approach would be education and dialogue, not naming individuals and declaring their souls in danger. That does not build faith. It only stirs division and tries to control people through fear rather than understanding.
A person’s spiritual journey is between them and God. It is not for us to broadcast judgments about who is “worthy” of the Church. That type of thinking is what pushes people away from the faith, not back toward it.
Is there some kind of repercussion if a priest gives communion to a person who is known to be a Mason?
ReplyDeleteA priest is not punished for giving Communion to someone simply because that person is a Mason. The Church teaches that the responsibility for receiving worthily begins with the individual’s own conscience before God. A priest cannot read a person’s soul, and he is not expected to police the Communion line based on rumors or labels.
ReplyDeleteIf the sin is public, as is the case here, and as is also the case with our pro-abortion governor, then yes, not only is the priest required to deny that person communion, but the person is required to recant publicly before receiving communion again. If a priest knowingly gives communion to a person publicly known to be in "grave sin," then the priest not only participates in the sin, but most likely a sacrilege.
DeleteSee Canon 915
DeleteTim, the moment you use the governor as your example, you show exactly how far you are stretching Canon 915. The Church does not authorize laypeople to declare who is in grave sin or who must be denied Communion. That judgment belongs to the bishop and the confessor, not to someone in a comment section. Canon 915 requires real pastoral correction, real evidence, and real authority. None of that comes from personal opinion. When you start deciding on your own who is unworthy of the Eucharist, you are not defending Church teaching. You are replacing it with your own.
DeleteYou're really working hard. Keep it up.
DeleteBy the way, that's the same argument Apuron and his cadre of jokers used to try to shut us up 10 years ago. As you know - they failed. In fact, they stepped right into the trap that you have jumped into with both feet. By fighting with us in public on this blog, it made a mountain out of what was originally just a mole hill. Apuron might still be archbishop but for doing what you are doing now. Just letting you know.
ReplyDeleteWe appreciate the publicity. We're almost to 16 MILLION views and I'd like to get there by Christmas :)
ReplyDeleteTim, the funny part is this. You can chase views and act like they prove something, but I will still be in my Catholic Church, receiving the sacraments, and actually following the authority Christ gave to His pastors. Your opinions online do not change that.
DeleteIf anything, the more attention you get, the more people can see the difference between someone who follows the Magisterium and someone who tries to replace it with their own judgment. I am staying right where I belong. The Church is not yours to gatekeep.
Well that's even funnier since I am the one quoting the Magisterium (as well as Frenchie and Chuck) and you are the one "replacing it with your own judgement," as anyone and everyone can see. As for gatekeeping, that is exactly what the laity is required to do, and what the very brave laity of Guam did. According to your way of thinking, we should have just let bishops and priests continue to rape and molest at will - which as the record now shows, they did for decades.
DeleteTim, quoting a document is not the same as applying it correctly. The Magisterium does not give laypeople the power to declare who is in grave sin or who must be denied Communion. It gives the principles, and leaves the actual judgment to legitimate Church authority.
DeleteAnd your comparison to past scandals proves my point, not yours. Holding leaders accountable is not the same as deciding who is unworthy of the Eucharist. One is about reporting real crimes. The other is about making spiritual judgments that the Church reserves for bishops and confessors.
You are taking a duty to speak up about wrongdoing and turning it into a license to judge someone’s soul. That is not what the Magisterium teaches, and it is not what Canon 915 says.
To be clear and for those still unsure of the language used by the Church:
ReplyDelete"... the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation affirms that membership in Masonic associations «remains forbidden by the Church», and the faithful who enrolls in them «are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion».
With this last statement, the Sacred Congregation points out to the faithful that this membership objectively constitutes a grave sin and by specifying that the members of a Masonic association may not receive Holy Communion, it intends to enlighten the conscience of the faithful about a grave consequence which must derive from their belonging to a Masonic lodge."
"... are in a state of grave sin" is a pretty clear and definitive statement and is not ambiguous. It is followed by "... and may not receive Holy Communion." Any Catholic elementary student who had received their Sacrament of the Eucharist as well as any elementary age CCD student knows good and well that a "state of mortal sin" is opposite of "a state of grace" which is how we are to approach the Eucharist when receiving our Lord.
This is not opinion. This is definitive Church teaching. We are not instructed to approach the Eucharist in "a state of good conscience." [In fact, Christ calls us not to be good but to be holy.]
A "state of good conscience" is not a substitute for a "state of grace."
It is apparent that the Anonymous advocate for the Freemasons remains anonymous because of a lack of confidence in his false statements of Church teachings and authority. It's easy and lazy to remain nameless while professing false doctrine and theology - there is no accountability.
In addition, Tim, Frenchie and Chuck have all repeated what has been proclaimed and distributed by the authority of the Church in regards to membership in the Freemasons. There is no ambiguity, amendment or caveats applied. It is not of their personal opinion, but rather statements of well documented facts.
The logical fallacies propped up by the Anonymous Freemason pretending to profess an authentic faith while intentionally dismissing straight and plain language from the teaching authority of the Church ought not go unnoticed nor ought to be dismissed. The rhetoric that the Anonymous Freemason engages is intended to confuse, misinform and lead Catholics who continue on their faith journey toward holiness. The Anonymous Freemason states commentary without citation, rather argues with his feelings and protestations.
What has occurred in these exchanges with the Anonymous Freemason and Tim, Chuck and Frenchie are not judgments from the three, but rather admonishments - Spiritual work of Mercy all Catholics are called to.
This comment is not submitted for the Anonymous Freemason's retort, for his constant and consistent obstinance and protestations of Church authority have given me little confidence that any future response would be different. I have no further interest in engaging such error. Rather, this comment is intended for those who may be discerning what is being messaged in revisiting the Church's declaration from the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith citing the "Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry."
We have knowledge of at least two political candidates for the executive branch who publicly profess to be Catholics and at once remain members of the Freemasons - and that ought to be problematic given the very clear proclamation that continued membership as a Freemason is to remain in a state of grave sin. These two very public figures are seemingly not being guided nor admonished in this issue by our local Church Authority, the Archbishop, which is another problematic layer.
The issue, at this point, is about integrity, both from Ada and San Agustin in seeking an office that requires integrity, and from Archbishop Jimenez, who is our Shepherd on Guam and is the integral continuity of the teaching authority of the Magisterium.
Jose, let me ask a simple question based on everything you just wrote.
ReplyDeleteAccording to your interpretation, does the Catholic Church teach that a Mason will go to hell?
If the answer is yes, then you are saying the Church has already judged my soul and that I cannot be part of the Church, cannot enter a Catholic church, and cannot ever return to grace. That is not Catholic teaching and you know it.
If the answer is no, then everything you wrote becomes an overreach.
The Church warns, teaches, and guides, but it never declares a living person condemned. Only God judges the soul and only a confessor or bishop can guide an individual case.
You can repeat documents, but turning them into a sentence of damnation is not how the Church works. That belongs to God, not to you.
Anonymous Freemason, allow me to simply answer your simple question: Yes and No. The Church is saying a Freemason is on the path to condemning himself to hell. That is why the Church gave the admonishment. It's very a very basic understanding of why there is a Church. She is interested in bringing all into full communion with Christ, not condemning people to hell. This will be made clear below.
DeleteNow, for the rest of your simple question, the other paragraphs, are actually logical fallacies based solely on your limited understanding of Catholic theology. If you are indeed interested in growth, you ought to acknowledge the deficiency of the presumptions of your "if/then" argument. In other words, you ought to ask questions without constraining responses to false premises.
To be clear, the Church is proclaiming that membership in the Freemasons is a mortal sin. Not "could be" or "might be" or "kinda is" but definitively "IS." That alone ought to be a convincing message.
Catholics ought to know that we cannot present ourselves in a state of mortal sin, not because God rejects the person, but because God rejects the sin to which that the person attaches himself. What is meant to be in the state of mortal sin? The Church teaches that there are three "conditions" that deem an evil act to be a mortal sin: (1) “grave matter,” (2) “full knowledge,” and (3) “deliberate consent.” All three must be met together [CCC 1857].
Thus: The Church has deemed that membership in the Freemasons is a grave matter; there is full knowledge in that both Ada and San Agustin have been informed; and their continued membership of their own free will is deliberately consenting to the grave matter. All three conditions have been met and thus both are in a state of mortal sin. (There can be an argument made that a person may have mental deficiencies to understand any or all of these conditions, but I would advise anyone running for executive office to declare that they have a limited capacity to make sound decisions. But I digress....)
Simply put, the Church is not leading someone to hell by identifying that an evil act (that which separates a person from God) committed by a Catholic is a mortal sin. It is a warning to be free of that mortal sin and to return into a state of grace. Hence, the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
The Church was not created to do anything else but to "perfect" or "cleanse us" from our sins in order that we may enjoy full communion with our Lord in eternity.
However, what you are protesting is the Church's authority to do all of the above. All in all, that is your prerogative and your free will to reject the Church. It's possible to disagree with her, but remain obedient by not rejecting her teachings (both in action and spirit) but your argument is to outright thumb your nose at her authority on this matter and replace it with your own.
If you believe that is your right and you can present yourself to God with your own authority, you do so at the sake of your salvation. I'd rather err on the side of the Christ given authority of the Church.
Again, and again deflecting through revision of statement. Jose explained what you refuse to hear and accept. The answer to your slanted and disgenious question is as follow. The Church teaches that anyone knowingly in a grave sin situation shall go to hell. It also teaches what Jesus told us, which is that if you truly repent and atone for your sin(s), God will recognize it,
Deleteand let you in with the saints, perhaps via purgatory, depending on your sin and atonement.
1st repent.
Your corrupt revisionism, takes you in the wrong direction. Pretension, arrogance, and refusing to follow God''s teachings, only leads you to the eternal fires of damnation. It appears you chose your way
Frenchie, your message sounds very close to the old fear tactics used in history when priests told people the world was flat, the oceans ended in hell, and anyone who questioned them was condemned. That is the same mindset Spain used when it conquered islands like ours. People were told that disagreeing with a priest meant damnation. We now know those claims were not the voice of God. They were human authority presented as divine truth.
DeleteThe Church teaches about sin, repentance, and grace, but it has never taught that anyone can stand in God’s place and declare another person destined for hell. That approach belongs to an older time when fear controlled faith. Today, the Church calls us to form our conscience, seek God sincerely, and trust His mercy not to repeat the same threats used centuries ago to silence people.
History shows why no one should claim God’s judgment for themselves. Only God decides the soul, not you, not me, and not anyone repeating old patterns meant to scare people into obedience.
Jose, thank you for the “yes and no” answer that somehow turned into a full courtroom ruling. It is impressive how confidently you announce who has met all three conditions of mortal sin, as if God personally handed you their files. The Church gives general teaching, but it does not appoint private citizens to confirm “full knowledge” and “deliberate consent” in other people’s souls.
DeleteYour explanation sounds very certain, but certainty is not the same as authority. The Church warns, guides, and calls people to repentance, but it does not assign individuals to diagnose mortal sin in specific people from the outside. That part belongs to God and the confessor.
So I understand your confidence, but confidence alone does not turn personal assumptions into doctrine.
Good grief. I ought to have concluded long ago that the Anonymous Freemason is unserious and is just here to juke and jive real responses with red herrings and strawman arguments that duck from the issue at hand. While he may believe he is clever, he is never able to stick the landing with his mental gymnastics.
DeleteEvery attempt to relay Church teaching with citations and apologetics is met with responses from the Anonymous Freemason akin to a child whining, "You're not the boss of me!"
God bless you on your faith journey, Mr. Anonymous Freemason. I pray and hope you're able to move beyond your ego and find humility before the Lord.
Yep. "You're not the boss of me" is pretty much his only position. Oh well.
DeleteIf the best you can offer now is “you’re unserious” and “you sound like a child,” then it is clear the actual argument has already run out of fuel. When people run out of facts, they switch to labels. That is what is happening here.
DeleteI am not the one dodging the issue. I asked direct questions about authority, conscience, and judgment that neither of you answered. Instead, you responded with jokes and personal comments. That is not theology. That is avoidance.
You can keep repeating that I am “unserious,” but it will not change the simple truth you have been avoiding from the beginning.
You do not have the authority to judge the state of anyone’s soul, and you know it.
Once that is acknowledged, the rest of your argument collapses on its own.
Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)
DeleteIgnoratio elenchi translates from Latin as "ignoring refutation" or "missing the point". The core of this fallacy is that an argument may be logically valid in itself, but it fails to address the actual issue under debate. The arguer effectively proves a different point (the irrelevant conclusion) and acts as if they have won the original argument.
Straw Man Fallacy
The straw man fallacy is a form of ignoratio elenchi that specifically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. The arguer:
1. Distorts, exaggerates, or fabricates a weak, "straw" version of the original argument.
2. Attacks this distorted version (knocks down the "straw man").
3. Claims victory over the original, real argument, even though the actual point was never addressed.
THE REAL ARGUMENT has ALWAYS been that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church has a proclamation referring definitively and consistently to the matter of the Freemasons. The Vatican, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, in her document 'Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry,' "affirms that membership in Masonic associations «remains forbidden by the Church», and the faithful who enrolls in them «are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion»."
There were no caveats, amendments, conditions or leeway given.
The Church always teaches that the way to return to a state of grace is through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. (And certainly not through arguing the point on a blog)
Further, a work of spiritual mercy includes to "Admonish the Sinner." Admonish does not mean condemn. It means to bring to light the sin and to bring the sinner to reconciliation.
Not one single person who has relayed the Church position on Freemasons has argued that he or the Church herself is capable or has the authority to condemn anyone to hell. That judgment is for God alone. However, we lay people do have a duty to admonish through the authority of the Church as we are commanded to do so. (Jesus himself)
In the case of Ada and San Agustin, they are both public figures, practicing Catholics, persons of authority and members of the Freemasons. As lay people, we have a duty to perform a fraternal correction in the pursuit of avoiding scandal. "...when the sin is obstinate, manifest, and causes public scandal, meaning it leads others into sin or confusion about Church teaching ...in such cases, there can be a duty for the good of the Church and society to address the behavior publicly, but the focus remains on the sin and the resulting scandal, not personal humiliation of the sinner."
This is all Church teaching and not the personal opinion of myself.
Anonymous Freemason wrote: The Church gives general teaching, but it does not appoint private citizens to confirm “full knowledge” and “deliberate consent” in other people’s souls.
ReplyDeleteHe is correct. Thus, while the previous version doesn't negate anything else I argued, I've amended the following paragraph:
The Church has deemed that membership in the Freemasons is a grave matter; there may be full knowledge in that both Ada and San Agustin have been informed; and their continued membership of their own free will is deliberately consenting to the grave matter. If all three conditions have been met, both are in a state of mortal sin. (There can be an argument made that a person may have mental deficiencies to understand any or all of these conditions, but I would advise against anyone running for executive office to declare that they have a limited capacity to make sound decisions. But I digress....)
In short, the Catholic Church holds authoritatively that membership in Free Masonry is a grave sin, and Anonymous Freemason rejects this authoritative teaching. Most likely he is a CCD product given that he is not unlike most Catholics who have been taught to believe their "conscience" trumps all.
ReplyDeletenice try guy, the whole of the US Government is a Masonic institution
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The U.S. was founded by mostly Masons or at least men who subscribed to Masonic principles. It was no secret that our founders despised what they called "Popery."
Delete