Read about it at the end of this post at Extra Thoughts. If this British case doesn't get your dander up, it should, never mind what else you think of the rest of my entry. I'm a little surprised that it isn't getting more press on blogs like Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs, but perhaps I just missed it there.
Rule of law thrown out the window in British thug acquittal
by Lydia McGrew
Comments (12)
SHOULD CATHOLICS IN ENGLAND AND THE USA HAVE THEIR OWN LAW AS THE SHARIAH FOR MUSLIMS?
Since the Catholic Church teaches extra ecclesiam nulla salus it naturally follows that all legislation must be based on the Kingship of the Social Reign of Jesus as expressed by the central authority of the Catholic Church, the Church whose teachings are constant throughout the centuries and throughout the world today.
Extra eccleisam nulla salus means outside the Church there is no salvation. For Catholics, this Latin phrase expresses the official teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. It says everyone, with no exceptions must be an explicit, visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
It is an ex cathedra dogma, thrice defined by popes and Councils and so it is an obligatory teaching for all Catholics to believe in, to safeguard their salvation from all eternity.
The three infallible ex cathedra pronouncements are
1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex Cathedra
2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.). Ex Cathedra
3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” - (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex Cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS: http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/
Vatican Council II Ad Gentes 7 repeats the same message.
In Ad Gentes 7 it is said all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.
Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Rome, Christians (Orthodox, Protestants, Evangelicals, Jehowahs Witnesses and other sects) know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican has positively endorsed the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Responses to Some questions regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church in which it refers to ‘the traditional doctrine’, ‘according to Catholic doctrine’
Cardinal William Levada, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and Archbishop Angelo Amato, former Secretary, CDF emphasize in Responses to Some questions regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church:
So Responses to Some Questions Regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church does not explain are understanding of Church (ecclesiology) as a break from Tradition and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It repeats the message of Vatican Council II that the Church is a necessity for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14). We do not separate Jesus from the Church, even though elements of salvation can be present outside the visible boundaries of the church. De facto everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church; it is a necessity for salvation .All non-Catholics need to enter through the ordinary way of salvation which is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. De facto everyone needs to enter the Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church.
Also see Redemptoris Missio 55, Dominus Iesus 20, CDF Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.j (2001) and Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.The Council of Trent states those who do not want to perish in the flood need to enter the Ark. (Article 114, Council of Trent).The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (Dec.8,1854) condemns the negation of the dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Proposition XVI), condemns any reduction or change of the same dogma(Proposition XVII), condemns any negation of this dogma in relation with Protestantism (Proposition XVIII)
BOSTON HERESY CASE
The ex cathedra traditional dogma was challenged in the 1940’s when the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Rector of the Jesuit Boston College claimed the Baptism of desire was explicit and so contradicted the infallible teaching. They claimed Fr. Leonard Feeney a Jesuit and some professors at Boston College were in heresy. Fr. Feeney it was said did not recognize implicit baptism of desire. The Church has always taught that ‘in certain circumstances’ a non Catholic with a genuine Baptism of desire could be saved. This of course would be known only to God.
The Cushing Doctrine, that the Baptism of Desire is explicit, was given prominence into eh archdiocese f Boston. Fr. Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order and the Archbishop issued a Decree against St. Benedict Centre.
Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.
Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.
Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.
A complaint was made to the Vatican (Holy Office) and based on the archbishops complaint Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. He refused to go to Rome to defend himself.
The archbishop and the Jesuits upheld the new Cushing Doctrine and the meaning of the ex cathedra dogma was changed. The new doctrine now was: everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and with the Baptism of Desire.
The secular newspapers, reported that the Catholic Church had changed its ancient understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The archbishop never contradicted them.
The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop (1949) was withheld and made public only after three years.The Letter affirmed the traditional understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It called it the 'infallible statement'. All non Catholics in Boston were oriented to Hell unless they convert was the familiar message.Everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church.
The communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney remained in opposition to the Cushing Doctrine. Catholics who affirm Vatican Council II have also pointed out that the Baptism of Desire exists only in theory and subjectively. The Baptism of water is explicit and able to be administered. The Baptism of desire is just a general concept. Since no one can say de facto or de jure that there is, or has been, a Baptism of desire in the present time on earth, the Baptism of Desire is always implicit .So it does not contradict the infallible teaching that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. There is no such thing as an explicit Baptism of Desire. There is no de facto Baptism of Desire that we know of. So it means Lumen Gentium 16 refers only to implicit faith and salvation. It’s never explicit.
The excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney was lifted without him having to recant. All the religious communities he founded and which still exist in the diocese of Worcester, Manchester, USA have been granted canonical status. They affirm the teachings of their founder expressed in the Athanasius Creed.
However since Archbishop Cushing had the support of the Jewish Left media the Boston heresy Case historically always referred to Fr.Feeney instead of Cardinal Cushing being in heresy.
Now will come the official heresy. Fr. Shamruk will suggest that implicit (exceptional, conceptual) Baptism of Desire is visible and explicit.Fr. Richard J. Shamruk who conducted the negotiations with Fr. Feeney on behalf of the Church writing in the Encyclopaedia of American Catholic History (Fr. Leonard Feeney, The Boston Case p.502)maintains the ambiguity of the Cushing Doctrine, the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ position of Catholics throughout the world.
True however this is only known to God. It is not as real as the Baptism of Water. So it was wrong fallacious to suggest that everyone does not have to be a visible member of the Church as if the Baptism of Desire is explicit and visible by nature. So this is a distorted interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office using the Cushing Doctrine and it is heresy. It is clear ‘double speak’.
Discerning Catholics consider this doctrine a hoax, the equivalent of the fabled Emperors New Clothes.
The Cushing Doctrine is welcome to Jesuit academics. Fr. Richard A. McCormick, in the Readings in Moral Theology No.3, titled The Magisterium and Morality (Paulist Press. Edited by Charles E.Curran and Richard A. McCormick S.J) ask if dogmas and doctrines could be changed and reinterpreted. Fr. Francis A. Sullivan S.J, Salvation Outside the Church? (New York, Paulist Press, 1992) is in dissent against the ex cathedra dogma. Fr. Sullivan still teaches theology at Boston College where the heresy on extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not denied.
Through his books Fr. Hans Kung uses the Cushing Doctrine, suggesting Lumen Gentium 16 refers to explicit and not implicit salvation, to question the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra. He maintains the Kung Deception that the Church has retracted extra ecclesiam nulla salus after Vatican Council II .it is now allegedly replaced with a vague, undefined collegiality of salvation.
Without the Cushing Doctrine one could say: For salvation everyone needs to be a visible(explicit) member of the Catholic Church with no exception and if there is anyone with the Baptism of Desire or who is in invincible ignorance it will be known to God only.
History
The phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus has its origin in the Church Fathers. It reflects Jesus’ teaching that he has founded one church (“my church” http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/a/u/0/2Dcfj0PU_JQ
) and those who enter and remain in this Church, His Mystical Body would go to Heaven. Only Catholics go to Heaven. Those who do not enter the Church would be condemned (Mk.16:16) to Hell. Entry into this Church for adults was through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water (John 3:5).
The road to Hell is wide Jesus tells us and most people take it.
Catholics know that the Church is the 'pearl of great price', it is the Kingdom of God on earth, which, when a man finds, he leaves everything for it.
Posted by Lionel Andrades | July 7, 2010 5:25 AM
it naturally follows that all legislation must be based on the Kingship of the Social Reign of Jesus as expressed by the central authority of the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church has never defined how many feet are in a mile. Some legislation is merely prudential and may vary from place to place.
That being said, while I don't mind a hearty debate on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, does it really belong in this post? If so, let the hearty debate commence!
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | July 7, 2010 11:22 AM
No, it doesn't. I will have a post later on sharia in Britain. But I would like to hope that all reasonable people can agree that nobody should be allowed to go in gangs and bust up a private factory and then plead a political motivation and have the judge virtually instruct the jury to acquit because he agrees with the political motivation. It's simply insane. Nor do I know of any Catholics who claim such a right, by the way.
Posted by Lydia | July 7, 2010 12:21 PM
Lydia,
Speaking of the rule of law, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled today that you can be kept in federal prison even after a lower court ruled that you had "established innocence" if the legislator set a time limit on when you can appeal.
Whatever happened to the idea of the courts following the letter of the law until it became clear that doing so would lead to injustice?
Posted by Mike T | July 7, 2010 4:52 PM
Sorry, Mike, I've just looked up the case and read the court's argument, and I'm not terribly sympathetic. There is no indication that the actual innocence showing was the result of new evidence coming to light (which is what the outraged libertarian blogging on the subject seems to imply). Making it possible continually to file habeas briefs on the grounds that one is actually innocent would mean no end to the filing of such briefs and would make all statutes of limitations on such filings meaningless. If there were substantial new evidence, it would be a different matter, as the court recognizes.
In any event, that's really rather OT here. I notice that as usual your response to an allegation that someone has, in the civilized world, committed an act of thuggish violence and gotten away with it is met by you with some sort of barely disguised equivalence claim for the supposed misbehavior of those on the side of enforcing the laws. So it was that when we had a post on two men caught literally with their victim's blood on their hands and yet not arrested, you started a discussion of how terrible it is that the police commit false arrests and how people should be able to resist them violently.
In the actual post here, the story (in case you missed it) is of a bunch of thugs doing 180,000 pounds worth of damage to a factory in England and being acquitted on judge's leading of the jury because the judge sympathized with their political cause.
I'm sympathetic to libertarianism, but not to anarchism, and your rather skewed way of responding to such stories does make me feel rather as thought I'm talking to at least a proto-anarchist with an anti-law-and-order bee in his bonnet. You should watch that.
Posted by Lydia | July 7, 2010 5:25 PM
Lionel has posted this long Extra Ecclesiam piece elsewhere verbatim. He seems to be making a tour of Catholic blogs and placing this in the comboxes with little regard to the topic of the original post.
Bad form.
Posted by R.C. | July 7, 2010 9:05 PM
Lionel's Feenyism is itself a formally condemned heresy, FYI. Not that that observation is on topic either.
Posted by Zippy | July 8, 2010 5:07 AM
It's on topic if it might inspire our blogmistress to delete it.
Posted by William Luse | July 8, 2010 4:37 PM
That's a good point, but then again, seeing that it's condemned heresy, it's probably instructive for anyone who comes later to see what Zippy's comment refers to. One of those doggoned blogospheric judgment calls, I guess.
Posted by Lydia | July 8, 2010 5:02 PM
Since you're talking about the rule of law, I beg to differ. The Court of Appeals noted that the district court circumvented the statute of limitations precisely because it felt that the defendant had "established innocence." To paraphrase Burke, if the law becomes a technocratic victimizer of innocent men, men will come to loathe it no matter what may be commendable about it.
The people in the system in these case are not innocent. They are thugs. They are simply the respectable dopplegangers of the very people they're putting away. There is literally no moral difference between this judge and the men who he protected.
Posted by Mike T | July 8, 2010 10:30 PM
And I don't draw equivalences for the purpose of moral relativism, but rather to pointedly demonstrate that the disease is rapidly metastasizing.
Posted by Mike T | July 8, 2010 10:56 PM
Mike,
I don't know if you read both the 9th Circuit opinion and the lower court opinion that it set aside, but the the 9th Circuit's conclusion is NOT that the statute of limitations has run on the appeals so it doesn't matter that the defendant has proven he is innocent. That's not what "actual innocence" means in the issue they dealt with, nor in the opinion of the lower court.
The lower court determined that upon a "showing of actual innocence", the 1-year limit on the statutory period for appeals of final conclusion is to be set aside, and a judicial exception to the 1-year limit is to be created. But there are 2 important things to understand about this lower court's decision. First, it was NOT a determination that the defendant was innocent, it was a determination that the defendant had produced enough new evidence that a jurist would be reasonable to conclude that guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. But the nature of this evidence consists in presenting doubts that the existing evidence was unambiguous enough to point specifically to the defendant. Therefore, a new trial would be in order to allow the state to re-present the case and clarify the existing evidence, and then allow the defense to present its new doubts about guilt. Procedurally the appeals for habeus corpus and the evidentiary hearings of the lower court for the "showing of innocence" were for this purpose and did not give the state the forum to supplement or clarify the trial evidence.
Second, the innocence we are talking about is whether the defendant was in fact guilty of violating THIS PARTICULAR law about abusing a child, rather than THAT law, or some other law. The facts presented in the petitioner's effort basically showed that there were at least 2 men involved in the situation where the child's ended up sexually abused, at least one directly. The net result of all the new doubts presented was of this nature: We don't really know whether it was John who did it, or whether John merely watched while Bob did it. We are not talking about MORAL innocence, where John had an alibi because he was in another city while Bob did it, or John was tied down, gagged, and handcuffed while Bob did it. The ambiguity of the evidence is perfectly consistent with John doing some of it while Bob did some of it, and strongly suggests that if John was not a direct participant he probably saw what was going on as an observer. Hardly the meaning of real honest to goodness actual moral innocence. If the evidence when clarified won't support that he violated the law directly, it may well support an accessory status. The "showing of actual innocence" for the purpose of the lower court was merely that enough new doubt exists about which of the men took which actions that there is doubt about which way a trial would go now; together with a equity determination that the law which prescribes a 1-year limit for appeals should have an exception for this situation.
The Appeals decision was simply that the lower court misconstrued state of prior law and prior judicial exceptions, and therefore its determination, that a judicial exception on the basis of equity should be made for this situation, is erroneous as a matter of law and equity. It did NOT rule that the guy should stay in jail even though he is innocent. It correctly ruled that the lower court made a mistake about the rules of equity (which is where you would normally find a court overturning such a 1-year limitation rule), and in doing so it certainly did not upset equity by leaving a person known to be innocent in prison.
Whatever else is the case, there is no basis for an upright lover of justice to despise what the 9th Circuit did in this decision.
Posted by Tony | July 12, 2010 6:42 PM