Archive

ShareThis Page
Blurring good, evil | TribLIVE.com
News

Blurring good, evil

Tribune-Review
| Friday, November 7, 2014 8:57 p.m

In his letter “Intelligent discussion overdue” , the Rev. Jeffrey J. Noble states that the Catholic Church “has changed with the time, problems and people of every era.” These are hollow words; he fails to cite specific changes made to the essence of Catholic dogma.

In an era dominated by modernism, it is only logical that those who believe in and aspire to implement an evolution of the essentials of dogma will attempt to convince all that such change is good and true. In this instance, the underlying theme to justify change is mercy. The proponents for this change attempt to project the idea that mercy is a new concept, heretofore unknown in the history of Catholicism. Pope Francis is the antithesis of Pope Pius X.

Many clerics beat the drum of modernism in an effort to erode the prohibitions of the magisterium regarding the intrinsic evils and objective disorders. It is a game of inches and takes many years to fully implement. Objectivity is to be abolished and replaced by subjectivity. Good and evil are to be blurred while the concept of sin is abolished.

Speak for yourself, Father Noble. Many of us are not confused by the issues.

Peter A. Caruso

West Mifflin

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.