tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post457946899445247217..comments2024-03-11T09:39:22.914+00:00Comments on Ex Umbris Et Imaginibus: Battle Lines Being DrawnFather Directorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17910574198138234820noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-13308053878932604122011-09-01T00:17:15.486+01:002011-09-01T00:17:15.486+01:00St. Thomas has this all covered in the Summa Theol...St. Thomas has this all covered in the Summa Theologica. There is guidance there for priests on what to do should such situations as these arise. It is most interesting. Apparently, a priest could, under questioning in court, deny knowledge of one man's sin without injuring his conscience, since he knows it not as a mere mortal man knows it, and in the realms of which the secular powers deal, but only as God knows it, as he came to his Godly knowledge of it with the Sacrament of Penance. I think it is in the supplement.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-42355613773396467452011-08-31T01:52:32.979+01:002011-08-31T01:52:32.979+01:00A child cannot be "given" more rights th...A child cannot be "given" more rights than he already has as a human being, under Divine or Natural Law and as recognised by the Constitution. However, a child naturally requires an adult to exercise or defend those rights in practice, and the mother or father is, naturally, the person who has the duty (and, as against a third party, the right) to do so on the child's behalf. It is the Constitution's recognition of this fact, in the Family and Education articles that it is proposed to tamper with, to permit agents of the State to usurp the role of parents. Such amendments to the Constitution, if they were to purport to do so, would be invalid as being against Divine or Natural Law, and in conflict with the Natural Law and Christian philosophy upon which the Constitution is founded, and around which it coheres. The same is true for any amendment that would purport to impede the practice of faith per se. Lynda A child cannot be "given" more rights than he already has as a human being, under Divine or Natural Law and as recognised by the Constitution. However, a child naturally requires an adult to exercise or defend those rights in practice, and the mother or father is, naturally, the person who has the duty (and, as against a third party, the right) to do so on the child's behalf. It is the Constitution's recognition of this fact, in the Family and Education articles that it is proposed to tamper with, to permit agents of the State to usurp the role of parents. Such amendments to the Constitution, if they were to purport to do so, would be invalid as being against Divine or Natural Law, and in conflict with the Natural Law and Christian philosophy upon which the Constitution is founded, and around which it coheres. The same is true for any amendment that would purport to impede the practice of faith per se. LyndaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-88437730012636446672011-08-30T16:05:08.878+01:002011-08-30T16:05:08.878+01:00You know, Father, you could be right. I would not...You know, Father, you could be right. I would not trust Kenny, Shatter, Fitzgerald or Gilmore - they would sneak such a provision into a Constitutional amendment and then justify it by talking about children's rights. The people of Ireland need to be very careful. Many freedoms have already been lost through equality legislation - there is a vertible persecution of orthodox Christianity in the UK thanks to equality laws. Expect the same here.Annenoreply@blogger.com