Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, Wisdomseeker,

You hit the nail squarely on the head! Great post! 👍

God bless
wisdomseeker;8498221:
jomoco;8493362:
Thank you. We should not be afraid to speak the Truth clearly and out loud. For that our ancestrals died. we must honor them by doing the same. everyone must submit to the Kingdom of God(Church) one true Religion and there is no other. We must continue to declare this in obedience to God. We must obey God and uphold this beautiful Truth given to us by our Holy God.
 
Hi, Perro Sarnoso,

Ah … what does this mean? and who are you talking to? 😃

I’m just getting old Perro … if things don’t jump out and wave at me … I tend to miss them. This is especially true when I go to look for my glasses! 😃

God bless
Ya darn skippy. 👍
 
Hi, DonSnow,

This is curious … I can understand the Obama Administration not wanting to tangle with this matter - and just leave it alone in the hope that nothing will come of it. But, it would seem like with the election just 13 months away - and being down in the polls - I would think that they would ‘bite the bullet’ and respond (if nothing more than to lie about what they are doing).

I am not familiar with the IRS code on this matter of 501c3 tax exempt status - but, it would seem with the Archbishop challenging Obama’s policies and the USCCB condemiing those who promote abortion and same-sex marriage - virtually all the cards are on the table. Or, am I misreading what is going on?

God bless
Good morning, tqualey,

Maybe the Administration is ignoring the Archbishop.
We need to pray for Jesus Christ and His Mother to give their Holy Roman Catholic Church the victory in this.

No, sir, I don’t think you misread anything.

God loves you,
Don
 
Good morning, tqualey,

Maybe the Administration is ignoring the Archbishop.
We need to pray for Jesus Christ and His Mother to give their Holy Roman Catholic Church the victory in this.

No, sir, I don’t think you misread anything.

God loves you,
Don
Who’s ignoring that fundamental beliefs are shaped by scientific realities throughout history?

Whose church grudgingly accepted the fact our universe is heliocentric rather than geocentric?

Whose church sees science and religion as complimentary to both truth and God being revealed?

What makes any of you so dead certain that homosexuals and their practices are anymore evil than a person with an inherited disease?

Why do you pick and choose those sections of the old and new testaments that support your prejudices towards sinners, while ignoring those very plentiful sections so earnestly imploring you to forgive your fellow brothers and sisters in sin, and turn the other cheek?

Who is unforgivingly casting stones here, and who isn’t?

Who is very fundamentally informed by science here, and who isn’t?

Who ignores at their peril friends?

jomoco
 
Who’s ignoring that fundamental beliefs are shaped by scientific realities throughout history?
err, the Catholic Church invented the Scientific Method
Whose church grudgingly accepted the fact our universe is heliocentric rather than geocentric?
The Catholic Church, of course!
Whose church sees science and religion as complimentary to both truth and God being revealed?
The Catholic Church!
What makes any of you so dead certain that homosexuals and their practices are anymore evil than a person with an inherited disease?
What makes you so sure pediophiles and their practices are any more evil than any other person who was “born that way?”
Why do you pick and choose those sections of the old and new testaments that support your prejudices towards sinners, while ignoring those very plentiful sections so earnestly imploring you to forgive your fellow brothers and sisters in sin, and turn the other cheek?
Could you be a bit more specific? In order for there to be forgiveness, there must be a wrong in the first place.
Who is unforgivingly casting stones here, and who isn’t?
Who is very fundamentally informed by science here, and who isn’t?
Who ignores at their peril friends?
🤷
 
err, the Catholic Church invented the Scientific Method
The Catholic Church, of course!
Not the Church itself. Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, and Galileo are considered the originators of the scientific method. If they were Catholics, then one could certainly say “Catholic scientists.”
Whose church grudgingly accepted the fact our universe is heliocentric rather than geocentric?
The Catholic Church, of course!
Note the word “grudgingly.” 🤷

I, by the way, sometimes disagree with Christine on such things lest anyone think we’re in cahoots, conservative and liberal, in a good-cop, bad-cop sort of way. 😃
 
Note the word “grudgingly.” 🤷
I noted it. I thought about responding, but the tone of the post was clearly antagonistic to the Church.

BTW, geocentrism was the prevailing theory of the day, among more than just the Church. Indeed, Copernicus published his theory of heliocentrism before Galileo was even born, and he suffered no backlash. Indeed, the Pope and Cardinals hearing of his theory praised him and urged him to publish (source):Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you… For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe… Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject …
Opposition to heliocentrism wasn’t only based in religious objections, and Galileo’s conflict with the Church had little to do with his theories. Rather, it had to do with the promulgation of heliocentrism as “certain”, rather then theoretical. At the time of Galileo’s trials, he too was espousing the certainty of heliocentrism, and was warned not to do so. Coperincus’ work was blocked pending correction (source):On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index “until corrected”, and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed.
Copernicus’ work was available for 70 years prior to this required correction. And only until it was clearly espoused as a theory was it permitted to be released. The conflict between the Church and science, as popularly promoted, is based in ignorance of the real story. Indeed, the Church had always been the friend of science prior to Galileo, during Galileo, and after Galileo.
 
The Catholic Church!What makes you so sure pediophiles and their practices are any more evil than any other person who was “born that way?”
Are you quite sure you want to study the subject of pedophilia and church objectively my friend?

jomoco
 
Whose church grudgingly accepted the fact our universe is heliocentric rather than geocentric?
From Forum Rules:
Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters
:
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782
 
Discussions involving objective truths should never be feared, but rather embraced as the zenith of civil discourse.

jomoco
 
What makes any of you so dead certain that homosexuals and their practices are anymore evil than a person with an inherited disease?
That is one possibility. Hopefully, they’ll find a cure. 👍
 
What makes any of you so dead certain that homosexuals and their practices are anymore evil than a person with an inherited disease?
An inherited disease is not sinful, nor is having one.

Homosexual acts are sinful.

Are we trying to blur the lines betyween person and action again?:rolleyes:
I fully understand if you are.
After all, the point you keep trying to pound on is not valid as long as people recognize the difference between the sin and the sinner.
 
An inherited disease is not sinful, nor is having one.

Homosexual acts are sinful.

Are we trying to blur the lines betyween person and action again?:rolleyes:
I fully understand if you are.
After all, the point you keep trying to pound on is not valid as long as people recognize the difference between the sin and the sinner.
👍
 
Discussions involving objective truths should never be feared, but rather embraced as the zenith of civil discourse.
You’re missing the entire point of the Forum Rule. It’s that the historical controversy is irrelevant to this discussion, because the Church’s moral teachings are not predicated on the changing and contradictory perspectives of science.

This thread is not a discussion about astronomy. And the Forum Rule does not pertain to “fear.” It’s a matter of relevancy.
 
Hi, Vz71,

Great post! 👍

If I may piggy-back on your comment … 😃

One of the arguments in past post is that society is not harmed by individual acts. I received an item this afternoon that takes such delusional thinking into an entirely expanded direction. I have quoted three paragraphs - but, the real item is with the link at the end.

Here’s a simple formula for understanding Demographic Winter: Those who have faith in
the future have children. Those who don’t, don’t. Where does faith in the future come
from? It comes from faith.

The pro-life position is based on the premise that each life, born and pre-born, is
infinitely precious. How often have we heard the catch-phrase “the children are our
future.” To put it another way, without children, there is no future?

Once people truly understand this, perhaps they’ll stop aborting their children. Perhaps
they’ll stop preventing conception. Perhaps they’ll start having large families again.
Perhaps they’ll give children the love they need and deserve. If humanity is to have a
future, this is where it starts.

See the Demographic Winter website at demographicwinter.com/index.html
God bless
An inherited disease is not sinful, nor is having one.

Homosexual acts are sinful.

Are we trying to blur the lines betyween person and action again?:rolleyes:
I fully understand if you are.
After all, the point you keep trying to pound on is not valid as long as people recognize the difference between the sin and the sinner.
 
An inherited disease is not sinful, nor is having one.

Homosexual acts are sinful.

Are we trying to blur the lines betyween person and action again?:rolleyes:
I fully understand if you are.
After all, the point you keep trying to pound on is not valid as long as people recognize the difference between the sin and the sinner.
Well, look at the subject objectively from an historical perspective. We have gone from denunciation, judgement, tortue/execution, to denunciation, judgement and discrimination of their actions, as if somehow their sex lives as homosexuals, can be magically dis-associated from them as an existing coporeal person with God-given rights of freewill choice.

You can’t samurai sword folks in half that way, pronouncing one half evil and satanic, whose fate lies in the depths of hell, then address their other half as poor sinners who if only would renounce their very nature through self-mortification, can attain heaven too.

jomoco
 
An inherited disease is not sinful, nor is having one.

Homosexual acts are sinful.

Are we trying to blur the lines betyween person and action again?:rolleyes:
I fully understand if you are.
After all, the point you keep trying to pound on is not valid as long as people recognize the difference between the sin and the sinner.
jomoco;8500343:
… as if somehow their sex lives as homosexuals, can be magically dis-associated from them as an existing coporeal person with God-given rights of freewill choice.

You can’t samurai sword folks in half that way, …
So which is it?
Are people their sins or are they not?
As much as you may try, you cannot have it both ways.
People are not slave to their desires.
I have an urge right now to hit my coworker in the head with a heavy metal object.
This desire is not a sin (although it could be under specific circumstances), unless I act upon it.
Likewise those with a sexual tendency one way or the other do not have to act upon it.

Unless it is your contention that men are really animals with no ability to rise above instinct.
Is this really your contention?
 
Well, look at the subject objectively from an historical perspective. We have gone from denunciation, judgement, tortue/execution, to denunciation, judgement and discrimination of their actions, as if somehow their sex lives as homosexuals, can be magically dis-associated from them as an existing coporeal person with God-given rights of freewill choice.

You can’t samurai sword folks in half that way, pronouncing one half evil and satanic, whose fate lies in the depths of hell, then address their other half as poor sinners who if only would renounce their very nature through self-mortification, can attain heaven too.

jomoco
The bolded section above is your primary flaw. Same sex attraction is not the “very nature” of a person…it is a disordered desire. It is no different than the desire to masturbate. People who masturbate are not “masturbators” by “their very nature.”
 
The bolded section above is your primary flaw. Same sex attraction is not the “very nature” of a person…it is a disordered desire. It is no different than the desire to masturbate. People who masturbate are not “masturbators” by “their very nature.”
Your marginalization of the natural instinct to reproduce is somewhat naive in my opinion.

It is not a sinful thing whatsoever. But rather a very powerful primal gift of God. That some people’s sexual polarity is wired backwards, does not lessen its power on them, nor make them evil for acting on their instincts like their correctly wired heterosexual brethren do every day, free of discrimination and association with evil.

The natural instinct to reproduce is extremely powerful as an objective fact of nature.

It is neither evil or satanic.

jomoco
 
Homosexuality is driven by the “natural instinct to reproduce”?

Now that’s irony
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top