dear father bernas,i dont think thats true: "One does not have to be a genius to understand that the curtailment of sale is intended to prevent the use of what is sold."what does this mean? if it merely curtails (i.e. limits), how can it "prevent the use" (i.e. ban). do prescription drugs ban "prevent the use" of drugs?also, the muntinlupa ordinace says nothing about the pharmacy law. from my reading of your blog, IF there is a list of contraceptives by the FDA, THEN condoms ought to be sold if u have a prescription. the muntinlupa ordinance doesnt even ask that question. it totally ignores the pharmacy law. as u say, its an easily confirmable requirement -- yet NO GOVERNMENT OFFICE is in a rush to confirm it.
Please read the March 14, 2011 decision of rhe sangunnian panglunsod.
I was entertained, too, Father. Ad majorem Dei gloriam.
i look forward to reading the march 14 decision when it comes online. so what did u mean? "One does not have to be a genius to understand that the curtailment of sale is intended to prevent the use of what is sold."curtailment does not equal ban.
Marcy 7, not March 14. I saw it in the internet but I lost the reference and can'find it again.
Fr. Bernas. Please answer this:(1) Are you saying that man is bound to follow his conscience at all times and cannot be forced to act contrary to it?(2) Are ypiu saying that Vatican II, through Dignitatis Humanae, teaches the primacy of conscience over the demands of objective truth and the teachings of the Church?(3) Are you saying, then,that man has a moral right to be wrong? Really now, is this what the Council meant by freedom from force? (4) Are you saying that Vatican II mean that man’s conscience is autonomous and that man is free from the moral obligation to conform to the authority of the magisterium of the Church?
@ arnoldI'm really curious as to why you seem to have personal issues against Fr. Bernas. In fact, it's not just Fr. Bernas that you seem to have issues with, your posts show that you seem to have personal issues with the Jesuit order as a whole. Did you study in a school the promulgates hatred towards Jesuits? Haha. Just wondering :PI'm not a big fan of Jesuits either, but I certainly don't have a grudge against them. I would definitely be more interested to see you explain your issues with Jesuits rather than see you provoke Fr. Bernas with your questions (which contain a lot of typographical errors, by the way). As it stands, I really don't think Fr. Bernas is interested in answering you just as much as you don't seem to be interested in comprehending his answer anyways (if he actually answered you).
Father, you must explain to the Faithful the error being allowed to flourish that the documents of Vatican II are teachings of the Church that the Faithful are bound by. Why have certain churchmen allowed this error to flourish? Why have we been led to believe that our assent is required? You have a duty to explain.
If I follow the comments of our dear RH objectors whose opinions are based on their faith, I can't help but notice their own objections to important Church teachings (e.g. Vatican II).I must say, that Mr Bernas is not alone in questioning the Church/men of the Church.Seems free will and rational thought are gaining ground. These are exactly what old institutions need to revitalize themselves :-)
@ Rousseau. You've said: "If I follow the comments of our dear RH objectors whose opinions are based on their faith, I can't help but notice their own objections to important Church teachings (e.g. Vatican II)."Going over the posts here, I couldn't see how you could possibly say what you've said.
@ Paolo. I think it's plain why I've been insisting that Fr. Bernas answer my questions, something he hasn't done yet.Fr Bernas made some interpretations of Dignitatis Humanae which, I think is not what the Church is saying. That's why I've shot off the series of questions which I was hoping Fr. Bernas would answer to enable both of us to arrive at what the Church is really intending Dignitatis to convey to the faithful, and I intend to go on asking till I get a reply; unless, of course, you want to answer on Fr. Bernas' behalf.
Not sure what you are trying to say rosseau. If you are welcoming the questioning of Church teaching (as opposed to pastoral initiatives) as a sign of some sort of "enlightenment", I must respond by saying free will and rational thought that are not rooted in the Faith will lead only to error. Man is not capable of knowing the Truth without the guidance of Church teaching. Everything we know about our Faith has been revealed to us by God Himself. The Faith is not something that dwells within each of us, to be discovered by meditation. The yearning for God is inherent in all of us but without the guidance of the Church that may lead to the worship of false Gods. Without submitting to Church teaching, we end up in the trap of Modernism, which is a heresy. Questioning motivated by a desire to deepen one's understanding of established teaching is a good thing. Questioning motivated by a desire to arrive at some "new" or "enlightened" understanding, not before taught by the Church, has been formally condemned. "Revitalize" you say? How is it that God's Truth could ever be in need of revitalization? The Church is not in need of revitalization. We are just in need of greater humility. Can you honestly say that the modern world, in its current state of chaos and anarchy, is in any condition whatsoever to revitalize anything? Sounds like nonsense to me.
Arnold, the problem with Dignitatis Humanae and most of the documents of the Council for that matter, is that the Council really did NOT know what it was trying to say. There have been so many "clarifying" documents since the Council regarding so many of the original documents, that it is next to impossible for anyone to figure out the true meaning unless one has a complete library of all of the clarifying documents. There is really no uniform understadning. One priest says this, another says that. The last few generations of clerics has put the Faithful in a very confused state. The liberal Catholic media during the years immediately after the Council coined the term "Spirit of Vatican II" in an effort to allow constant and unending re-interpretation, which was really what the liberal Catholic establishment was after. What the documents say no longer matter actually. The only thing that matters is how the documents have been allowed to mean. This is all extremely uncharacteristic of a Church long known for its precise use of language.Ironically, even Pope Paul VI himself condemned the belief in a "conciliar spirit" (spirit of Vatican II), knowing what the consequences would be. He also said that the documents must be interpreted in light of Tradition, they were never meant to replace it, which any true Catholic understands is quite impossible. Let me close by saying that every heresy in the long history of the Church originated within the clergy. For these and many more reasons I maintain that the clergy has an awful lot of explaining to do and we have an absolute right to demand it. Know Tradition and you will be armed against false teaching. Know only what Vatican II says and you will know only what is in fashion at any given time.God Bless you and I hope you get your answers.
Here's a good read for this topic: "What can and can't be Imposed against another’s Conscience?"
Thanks for blogging. Father Bernas, I ask your permission to link you in my blog.