Are Catholics allowed to be conspiracty theorists?

[champam]

As a anti abortion anti death penalty Catholic (which you must be) which U.S political party do you vote for? Pro Abortion Democrats or Pro Death Penalty Republicans?
The enemy has used the illusion of democracy to divide and partially conquer you. Where is the anti abortion and anti death penalty party? Where is the Catholic party? There’s a lot of Catholics in the U.S. with Mexicans coming in there are more and more. Where is this new political party? Democracy is an illusion, you currently live in a tyranny, but you don’t even know who the tyrants are, where they live, what they believe in, what their motives are, they are most likely not even American. Probably some where in Israel or the Middle East or China.

Democracy is like the stock market, it is utterly controlled and our (name removed by moderator)ut into it is predicted and manipulated.

Lets comment on:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fairmaria%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F16%2Fvideo-st-maximilian-kolbe-freemasonry-part-i-dr-miravalle-mcast-s53%2F&urlhash=ZYqT&_t=disc_detail_link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission

Did these people destroy the World Trade Center? Was it all a ruse by Jews to have us fight their war against Muslims?

Was the French Revolution a good thing? Did all of these groups above arise because of the power void left after we dethroned our French head of Catholic State? Would you Americans be comfortable with a French Catholic King?

Was the French Monarchy and the Church actually almost bankrupt by usurious Knights Templar money lenders?

Maybe the one thing the Anglicans did right was to keep some semblance of Monarchy.

Would we be better off in a Catholic State which is a blend of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy?

seattlecatholic.com/a050615.html

Like the way he puts this:

Although, according to the system’s chief proponents, individual rights are better upheld in a liberal democracy, in fact this has not held good in any liberal democracy anywhere in the world. Rather, we see a consistent pattern of the erosion of basic human rights-most notably that of life-in preference to the wishes of an ephemeral majority:

And This:
St. Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church, who wrote in great detail on the subject) does note the intrinsic superiority of monarchy, but only if power is wielded by an ideal monarch:

Monarchy theoretically and in the abstract, monarchy in the hands of God who combines in Himself all the qualifications of an ideal ruler, is indeed a perfect system of government; in the hands of imperfect man, however, it is exposed to many defects and abuses. A government tempered, therefore, by all three basic forms (i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), a mixed government, is, on account of the corruption of human nature more useful than simple monarchy.8

 

[ErikaA]

Just remember, never assume a conspiracy when incompetence can explain the situation.

 

[aspawloski4th]

As a anti abortion anti death penalty Catholic (which you must be) which U.S political party do you vote for? Pro Abortion Democrats or Pro Death Penalty Republicans?
The enemy has used the illusion of democracy to divide and partially conquer you. Where is the anti abortion and anti death penalty party? Where is the Catholic party? There’s a lot of Catholics in the U.S. with Mexicans coming in there are more and more. Where is this new political party? Democracy is an illusion, you currently live in a tyranny, but you don’t even know who the tyrants are, where they live, what they believe in, what their motives are, they are most likely not even American. Probably some where in Israel or the Middle East or China.

Democracy is like the stock market, it is utterly controlled and our (name removed by moderator)ut into it is predicted and manipulated.

Lets comment on:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fairmaria%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F16%2Fvideo-st-maximilian-kolbe-freemasonry-part-i-dr-miravalle-mcast-s53%2F&urlhash=ZYqT&_t=disc_detail_link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission

Did these people destroy the World Trade Center? Was it all a ruse by Jews to have us fight their war against Muslims?

Was the French Revolution a good thing? Did all of these groups above arise because of the power void left after we dethroned our French head of Catholic State? Would you Americans be comfortable with a French Catholic King?

Was the French Monarchy and the Church actually almost bankrupt by usurious Knights Templar money lenders?

Maybe the one thing the Anglicans did right was to keep some semblance of Monarchy.

Would we be better off in a Catholic State which is a blend of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy?

seattlecatholic.com/a050615.html

Like the way he puts this:

Although, according to the system’s chief proponents, individual rights are better upheld in a liberal democracy, in fact this has not held good in any liberal democracy anywhere in the world. Rather, we see a consistent pattern of the erosion of basic human rights-most notably that of life-in preference to the wishes of an ephemeral majority:

And This:
St. Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church, who wrote in great detail on the subject) does note the intrinsic superiority of monarchy, but only if power is wielded by an ideal monarch:

Monarchy theoretically and in the abstract, monarchy in the hands of God who combines in Himself all the qualifications of an ideal ruler, is indeed a perfect system of government; in the hands of imperfect man, however, it is exposed to many defects and abuses. A government tempered, therefore, by all three basic forms (i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), a mixed government, is, on account of the corruption of human nature more useful than simple monarchy.8

Please don’t tell me because I’m Catholic I have to be antdeath penalty since the current catechism does allow for it. Read our constitution, we are a republic not a democracy. Ifover 1/2 of the people wanted to outlaw Catholicism for example it would be illegal. Yes I am a conspiracy theorist. Globalism and new world order ring a bell?

 

[champam]

Not sure where your getting your facts, I’m thinking the Fox Protestant and Jewish Propaganda Network.

Is there a dictionary that might define the word “abolish” differently than I understand?

Re: The notion of the choosing prolife vs. pro-death penalty is a false dichotomy.

americancatholic.org/news/newslist.aspx?categoryid=39
The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty in nearly all cases. Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, U.S. bishops and other Catholic leaders throughout the world have spoken out against capital punishment as act that stands in contradiction to the belief that all human life is sacred.

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html

The Holy See has consistently sought the ***abolition ***of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions …

 

[txstm]

To the OP,

Your first post says we must be against the death penalty. Your second post says the Church opposes the death penalty in nearly all cases. Big swing there.

From the CCC:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”**

 

[centurionguard]

To the OP,

Your first post says we must be against the death penalty. Your second post says the Church opposes the death penalty in nearly all cases. Big swing there.

From the CCC:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty

 

[Curious_Gamer]

txstm;5220973:

To the OP,

Your first post says we must be against the death penalty. Your second post says the Church opposes the death penalty in nearly all cases. Big swing there.

From the CCC:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

I’m not particular to taking complete sentences out of context but the above statement, even if it does belong to the C.C.C. seems quite ambiguous to me.
Killing another human being no matter how one wants to rationalize it with the sole exception of self defence to save another’s life is morally wrong.
“THOU SHALT NOT KILL”. The five major religions of the world embrace this law which is to be sacredly adhered to and is answerable to God Almighty. Since when did the Catholic Church make recourse to support the Death Penalty? This is new to me because I have never heard this before.**

I think that the death penalty is used incorrectly in this country because it is still used as a form of punishment. The only way that it could be acceptable was if there was no other means of protecting innocent people from a particular criminal. Thanks to maximum security prisons, it is very unlikely now that the death penalty would be necessary in this country. Killing in self-defense can be legitimate because there may be no other way to stop an attacker, though it should be the victim’s last resort.

Side note: I have been told in the past that a better translation of that commandment would be “Thou shalt not murder”. I can’t say whether this is correct or not, but maybe someone else that knows the old languages could help me out? Regardless, there is a difference between “murder” and “kill”.