Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can justify the killing of the most innocent. I research both sides of every issue except for the life starting and life ending issues.

Yesterday at mass part of the homily was that if you are not part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

I view most of those that support the most pro abortion candidates part of the problem.

I see very few Catholic democratic apologists condemn abortion, it is usually just making excuses for them or trying to dumb down the issue.

Harry Reid has consistently opposed Abortion. I disagree with him on a lot of other issues, and it does not mean I would vote for the man, but I appreciate his consistent defense of the unborn.
You’re right that Reid and others like him are the exception, not the rule, though.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Harry Reid has consistently opposed Abortion. I disagree with him on a lot of other issues, and it does not mean I would vote for the man, but I appreciate his consistent defense of the unborn.
You’re right that Reid and others like him are the exception, not the rule, though.

Harry’s about 50/50 on abortion issues. Not quite consistent but I believe he did vote pro-life on some very important ones.

ontheissues.org/Social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm

 

[CMatt25]

Well, I appreciate the civil manner in which you keep answering me. Also, I appreciate your responses. This point may help: you say you are not a theocratic dictator, presumably to explain your position on the legality of abortion. I answer: when have I ever advocated in my posts rule by fiat? I am simply saying that in the pluralistic democracy we live in, we have the right to persuade people through discussion and debate so that they will join us in fighting to change certain laws democratically. I think we need to stop the slaughter of the unborn, and want to persuade people to join me in voting for people who also want to stop the slaughter (or atleast seriously curtail it). That is the American way! So quite the contrary, I am not advocating a theocracy and I rather resent the implication that simply because what I’m advocating also happens to be Church teaching, that I am trying to make all Church teaching the law of the land. For example, I don’t want to outlaw steak barbecues on Friday’s during Lent. The killing of the unborn is a different matter, and people of all stripes who respect life should be able to understand this outside of Church teaching. Now, there will always be people who reject the popular will of the people. In the 60’s, when blacks were finally given their full civil rights, you had racists in the south who disagreed. We ignored their wishes, even though we are a “pluralistic democracy”. While I recognize that civil rights for blacks and the abortion issue aren’t the same - what’s apples to apples is this: I do think that even in a pluralistic democracy, some people lose out - in the case of civil rights for blacks, racists lost out. If abortion were outlawed, those who want to abort babies would lose out. Good.

I understand that you want to “move on” from this discussion. However, I am rather stubborn when it comes to defending the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, and I am an optimist: I truly believe that through discussion, you might see that the unborn are human, they have rights, and they are worth fighting for. I am optimistic that you will see that you need to help us protect the unborn, rather than shy away from it because others’ “don’t agree with you”. What kind of sentiment is that? Doing the right thing is not always the popular thing, but we need to do it anyway.

Thanks again for your responses, and if you want to, reply. I would atleast like you to admit that those who want to change the law on abortion are “theocrats” who want to impose their religion on everyone else. That is not what we’re talking about! I want to change the laws democratically so that our laws reflect a respect for life. Do you understand this? I hope you do - you seem genuine in your beliefs and a nice person. You’re just mistaken in your thinking. Please respond again.

Ishii

Ishii, and you as well seem like a nice person. And I don’t think you want to impose all Catholic teaching onto everyone. It seems though while many Catholics and Southern Baptists for instance take the viewpoint you do, there are other Christians who are more pro choice and denominations such as UCC, TEC, PCUSA, UMC, ELCA, DoC are more open on this issue. Even SDA’s allow for greater choice and free will on the matter.

Indeed though someone always loses out. As the law currently stands, the opponents of a woman’s right to determine whether or not she reasons and believes human personhood begins at the moment of conception and those who even oppose choice in cases of rape or incest or to protect the mother’s health are among those losing out. And yes so you don’t have to say it, the unborn embryo or fetus are losing out. But if the law of the land on abortion is reversed to mirror Catholic teaching, the rights of a woman to determine what she believes on this matter is what would be lost.

So yes I understand you wish to work democratically by your vote to change the law. Just as I do to advocate for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick. As in many areas, people have differing views and emphasis. I understand your stubborness on this issue. I’m just unsure if both extremes remain stubborn we shall never get beyond the debate. This is partially why I advocate safe legal but rare. But it has been nice that 2 of us on opposite views have been able to at least discuss it with some civility. God bless you again my friend.

 

[human_being]

So, you watch Beck on a regular basis as well?

I have listened to him numerous times on my way home from work. Why? Becuase i feel like i need to listen to here what sort of nonsense the bosses of the world are braiwashing the masses to believe…and that is exactly the way i see it…like brainwashing propaganda…becuase that is what it is. Repetitive over-and-over-again braiwashing.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have listened to him numerous times on my way home from work. Why? Becuase i feel like i need to listen to here what sort of nonsense the bosses of the world are braiwashing the masses to believe…and that is exactly the way i see it…like brainwashing propaganda…becuase that is what it is. Repetitive over-and-over-again braiwashing.

I find it incredulous that the accusation of brainwashing is made in the case of Beck, particularly when he constantly urges people to do their own research and validate the information that he disseminates. The defining point of propaganda is that it is assumed to be incontrovertable fact. You aren’t invited to refute propaganda.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Remember that Beck is a showman and primarily full of it and looking for money.

Remember that he was Catholic and rejected the Church

Remember that when he is talking about God he believes that there are sacred texts written after the apostles, that Christ isn’t truly God and that when we die we can all get our own planet to play god on… is he worshiping the same God your are? Our all Powerful Creator? or something else…

That sound like the “Christian” values you want your kids to have…

Don’t by into the lie of Glenn Beck, if you watch his show and actually take notes you can disprove pretty much EVERYTHING he says.

He also attacks the Church and mixes in LDS lies to plant misinformation in those who don’t know their faith.

He is a liar, Christ warned us about people like him. I would encourage everyone to turn off the filth he spews on a nightly basis. I’m OK with O’Riley, but don’t believe Hannity represents us Catholics too well with some of his misinformation.

But I would again warn everyone to not be mislead by Glenn Beck, he is spewing lies to cause problems between Americans and also misleading Christians with his LDS heresy. As Msg Pope noted in his note today regarding the Koran burnings, to intentionally mislead people and cause strife between others is a sin.

Joe

:clapping: (except for the part with being okay with O’Riley)

 

[bbarrick8383]

I have listened to him numerous times on my way home from work. Why? Becuase i feel like i need to listen to here what sort of nonsense the bosses of the world are braiwashing the masses to believe…and that is exactly the way i see it…like brainwashing propaganda…becuase that is what it is. Repetitive over-and-over-again braiwashing.

So, everyone that listens to Beck is being brainwashed, but you and your superhuman intelligence is somehow immune to the hypnotizing sound of Glen Beck?

Makes sense to me.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Hi Jeff, it might amaze you as a new Catholic but allow me to nab this in the bud right away before it gets blown out of proportion as often occurs here on the forum as to who is rightfully considered a Catholic by the Church. Well meaning folks I am sure who express their full adherence to all Church teaching sometimes overlook this one.

The Church teaches Baptism makes one a member of the Church and places an indelible, permanent character onto one’s soul.

Here are words of a 2006 Pontifical Council expressed in a letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI which may be of help.

"the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

And in essence it won’t matter if someone does post something about excommunication because in fact even excommunicated Catholics, while officially considered barred from the Sacraments or for instance from serving as EMHC or lectors, are still considered Catholics in the eyes of the Church.

I hope this helps! God bless you in your new walk of faith and peace.

Matt,

Thanks…well that is what I kind of figured some would say as I have seen this on other threads…although I thought that all Catholics (Big “C” Roman) were members of the catholic church (Christian), as part of the body of Christ, but that through excommunication they are more equivalent to a little “c” catholic although separated, but no longer part of the big “C”.

Kind of like how a married same sex couple can say, “See look mom I have a marriage certificate!”, but everyone that is religious knows that they are as married as two male Tsetse Flies.

It would be like a Pro-Life person that has paid for a “Life” long membership to a Pro-Life organizations starts preaching against life, going so far as to practice anti-life activities, but waiving that membership (Confirmation) and claiming to be Pro-Life.

I will need to ask my Priest if in fact excommunication results in being Ex-communicated from the church or it it just means a time out, without apology?

Take Care…and thank you for the well wishes it is an AWESOME journey…!!

P.S. These forums are very dry and regardless of the percieved tone of my posts I am honestly in search, so when I find something different or “Off” from what I have read I question. -----God Bless----

 

[ishii]

Ishii, and you as well seem like a nice person. And I don’t think you want to impose all Catholic teaching onto everyone. It seems though while many Catholics and Southern Baptists for instance take the viewpoint you do, there are other Christians who are more pro choice and denominations such as UCC, TEC, PCUSA, UMC, ELCA, DoC are more open on this issue. Even SDA’s allow for greater choice and free will on the matter.

Indeed though someone always loses out. As the law currently stands, the opponents of a woman’s right to determine whether or not she reasons and believes human personhood begins at the moment of conception and those who even oppose choice in cases of rape or incest or to protect the mother’s health are among those losing out. And yes so you don’t have to say it, the unborn embryo or fetus are losing out. But if the law of the land on abortion is reversed to mirror Catholic teaching, the rights of a woman to determine what she believes on this matter is what would be lost.

So yes I understand you wish to work democratically by your vote to change the law. Just as I do to advocate for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick. As in many areas, people have differing views and emphasis. I understand your stubborness on this issue. I’m just unsure if both extremes remain stubborn we shall never get beyond the debate. This is partially why I advocate safe legal but rare. But it has been nice that 2 of us on opposite views have been able to at least discuss it with some civility. God bless you again my friend.

Thanks. The only thing I would say here is that I don’t want to impose Catholic teaching on anyone. Also, while I do believe in the Catholic teaching on life as being sacred from the moment conception to natural death, I realize that not everyone will agree with that in this country. However, I do think its possible to have a consensus on this issue in this country that atleast respects life more than we do now! And that consensus does not believe in partial birth abortion, nor does it believe in abortion on demand with no limits, and that is a start. A small group of justices on the supreme court decided that America would have legal abortion on demand. I believe in reversing that decision so that individual states can have a say on what limits they think should be imposed. I dare say that my position - overturning Roe v Wade and returning it to the states is more respectful of our pluralistic democracy than yours which seems to want to preserve the decision of an elite group of five justices who imposed their will on the rest of the country!

And once again, its not a matter of being for the unborn OR being for the homeless, hungry, etc. as you wrongly frame this discussion.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Matt,

Thanks…well that is what I kind of figured some would say as I have seen this on other threads…although I thought that all Catholics (Big “C” Roman) were members of the catholic church (Christian), as part of the body of Christ, but that through excommunication they are more equivalent to a little “c” catholic although separated, but no longer part of the big “C”.

Kind of like how a married same sex couple can say, “See look mom I have a marriage certificate!”, but everyone that is religious knows that they are as married as two male Tsetse Flies…

I will need to ask my Priest if in fact excommunication results in being Ex-communicated from the church or it it just means a time out, without apology?

Take Care…and thank you for the well wishes it is an AWESOME journey…!!

P.S. These forums are very dry and regardless of the percieved tone of my posts I am honestly in search, so when I find something different or “Off” from what I have read I question. -----God Bless----

Jeff, I suppose then those religious people in support of gay marriage in for instance the Christian denomination the United Church of Christ are not religious by your definition.

You can ask your priest but keep in mind priests don’t always get things right. Many far greater conservatives or traditionalists than I on the forum will even tell you that. The priest at my local parish even went so far as to say his answer to the poor is to get a job even though we know that was not Christ’s only answer for the poor.

But here is some Canon I found for you.

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance

In other words officially considered to be under a severest penalty. Are at least officially not supposed to participate in any ministry of the Church or receive the sacraments until repentance and the excommunication lifted.

But still a capital C - Catholic. Still I assume encouraged to attend Mass. I’ve even read still under the Church stated obligation to attend. Whose salvation is not known as we don’t know whether a person will have reconciled with God prior to death.

God bless and peace!

 

[CMatt25]

I believe in reversing that decision so that individual states can have a say on what limits they think should be imposed.

And once again, its not a matter of being for the unborn OR being for the homeless, hungry, etc. as you wrongly frame this discussion.

Ishii

Ishii, then you’ll be happy to know under Roe my state not long ago had a vote on the limit of parental notification. We all had the opportunity to vote on it! And while it might not have to be either/or, the Church in Her elevaton of one issue to such an overwhelming degree in consideration in voting, has in my view harmed the other issues. Peace!

 

[Black_Rose]

Thanks. The only thing I would say here is that I don’t want to impose Catholic teaching on anyone. Also, while I do believe in the Catholic teaching on life as being sacred from the moment conception to natural death, I realize that not everyone will agree with that in this country. However, I do think its possible to have a consensus on this issue in this country that atleast respects life more than we do now! And that consensus does not believe in partial birth abortion, nor does it believe in abortion on demand with no limits, and that is a start. A small group of justices on the supreme court decided that America would have legal abortion on demand. I believe in reversing that decision so that individual states can have a say on what limits they think should be imposed. I dare say that my position - overturning Roe v Wade and returning it to the states is more respectful of our pluralistic democracy than yours which seems to want to preserve the decision of an elite group of five justices who imposed their will on the rest of the country!

**And once again, its not a matter of being for the unborn OR being for the homeless, hungry, etc. as you wrongly frame this discussion. **

Ishii

Politically, in the US, they are mutually exclusive issues. But an American conservative may argue that the Democrats do not sincerely care about the homeless, while a “liberal” (I do not identify with this term) may argue that Republicans do not care about abortion.

However, I feel no moral qualms about supporting the Democrats since my justification for supporting them is their position on abortion; I do it for other reasons. One can use the principle of “double effect” as a justification for this position, since I did not intend nor desire increased abortions relative to a situation where the Republicans would be in power. I oppose the Republican Party for one reason; I strongly believe in the welfare state meaning that I am vehemently opposed to neo-liberalism.

The official pro-life stance by the Republican Party is not enough to gravitate me to it, and support (through my act of voting) their other policies that I perceive to be absolutely fulsome. But pro-life policies, neo-liberalism, and fiscal conservatism are completely miscible, to borrow lexicon from chemistry. I would vote pro-life if such views are distilled from the mixture of other policies that I find abhorrent. I dislike the moral superiority assumed by conservative Catholics (defined by those who fervently support the Republican) when they lecture that it is obligatory to vote for Republicans because they would supposedly enact pro-life policies. To them, they oppose the supposed “socialism” of the Democratic Party, and therefore voting for the Republicans is rather easy choice with no dilemmas, since the Republican Party views are synchronized with both their social and economic positions. Because I ardently support left economic positions, I feel that I would betray my conscience if I vote Republican.

On the other hand, I would vote for someone such as Pat Buchanan who is both anti-immigration and a protectionist (and pro-life and a traditionalist conservative) over many Democrats (unless those Democrats also adopt Buchanan’s antiglobalization positions too).

(Also I would never vote Republican since they would not pay for antiemetics I would need to take after voting for them. )

 

[human_being]

So, everyone that listens to Beck is being brainwashed, but you and your superhuman intelligence is somehow immune to the hypnotizing sound of Glen Beck?

Makes sense to me.

I would assume that some left Germany before it got too far out of hand…But most stayed.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

To them, they oppose the supposed “socialism” of the Democratic Party, and therefore voting for the Republicans is rather easy choice with no dilemmas, since the Republican Party views are synchronized with both their social and economic positions.

THe positions and politicies of the Democrat party are no supposed socialism, they are verifiably socialistic. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the largest caucus and is currently comprised of 83 Democrats / 0 Republicans. source The Catholic Democrats in congress all subscribe to liberation theology, if not by declaration, then as evidenced by their congressional voting record and implication by their public comments. Liberation theology has been roundly condemned by the last 2 Popes, but apparently pursuing Marxist-style “social justice” is more important than justice based on Christian charity.

 

[gnjsdad]

The Catholic Democrats in congress all subscribe to liberation theology, if not by declaration, then as evidenced by their congressional voting record and implication by their public comments. Liberation theology has been roundly condemned by the last 2 Popes, but apparently pursuing Marxist-style “social justice” is more important than justice based on Christian charity.

You are probably right about that.

The remedy is political action based on authentic Catholic teaching on social justice. Nothing else will cure what ails the USA. We Catholics are the salt of the earth. When our influence is weak, the society suffers. When our influence is strong, the society around us benefits. It’s that simple.

Also, the remedy is NOT the social Darwinist philosophy that animates the Republican/Tea Party.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You are probably right about that.

The remedy is political action based on authentic Catholic teaching on social justice. Nothing else will cure what ails the USA. We Catholics are the salt of the earth. When our influence is weak, the society suffers. When our influence is strong, the society around us benefits. It’s that simple.

Also, the remedy is NOT the social Darwinist philosophy that animates the Republican/Tea Party.

The Tea Party is more in line with authentic Christian charitable aims of social justice than anything in the DNC.

 

[Suudy]

One can use the principle of “double effect” as a justification for this position, since I did not intend nor desire increased abortions relative to a situation where the Republicans would be in power.

I think we’ve been over this before. But this is a misapplication of the principle of double effect.

From here (reformatted for clarity):

The principle of double effect has several guideline that must be met for an act to be morally acceptable:

1. 
   *]The intended act must be good in itself. The intended act may not be morally evil.
   *]The good effect of the act must be that which is directly intended by the one who carries out the act. The bad effect that results from the act may be foreseen by the agent but must be unintended.
   *]The good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means.
   *]The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect which would result.
   *]Acts that have morally negative effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e., when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.
   
   Now, I don’t doubt that you do “not intend nor desire increased abortions…” But note that the principle of double effect requires that the “good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect which would result” (see #3 above).
   
   What evil effect, then, do you see being mitigated by voting for Democrats that is of equal or greater proportion to the evil of abortion?

 

[Suudy]

The priest at my local parish even went so far as to say his answer to the poor is to get a job even though we know that was not Christ’s only answer for the poor.

Nor was Christ’s answer that the state help the poor. In fact, I don’t recall anywhere that Christ exhorted the state to do anything at all. The appeals were individuals and their consciences.

Read Centesimus Annus and you’ll get a better picture of the proper roles of state and individuals.

But still a capital C - Catholic. Still I assume encouraged to attend Mass. I’ve even read still under the Church stated obligation to attend. Whose salvation is not known as we don’t know whether a person will have reconciled with God prior to death.

Indeed. But isn’t it a far better thing to be a capital C - Catholic and be in communion with the Church? That is, to “profess the Catholic faith in its entirety” (CCC 838)? Which, do you think, is the better position?

 

[CMatt25]

THe positions and politicies of the Democrat party are no supposed socialism, they are verifiably socialistic.

Reaity check. Nah. If they were as socialist as you guys like to pretend, single payer for one thing would not have been taken off the table. And we certainly would have gotten at the barest minimum a public option.

 

[CMatt25]

Because I ardently support left economic positions, I feel that I would betray my conscience if I vote Republican.

End of story

CCC 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.