F
Faithdancer
Guest
LOL can you imagine the court calendar backlogs if they did?
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Now just to convince teenagers and young adults that rutting like animals makes us…animals. It’s such a powerful drive to overcome, I know full well. But the consequences, even if pregnancy doesn’t result, can be so emotionally and spiritually damaging…
(backed up by statistics as to who procures abortions and who does not.)
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
You’ll get no argument from me here.
I would love a secular chastity movement, parallel to what the Everts do, but I would like it started by women, because I truly believe that women are the key. They keep saying Yes. It’s particularly the young women who have recently admitted that they feel pressured by men to have sex while unmarried. It’s in your power, ladies!
There was a secular chastity movement that was operative in the '90’s (featured on 60 Minutes), but it seems to have fizzled out.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I appreciate the thoughtful reply.
However, how does this explanation reconcile itself with those who extol the wonders of the European social welfare state? If society- through government- has erected programs and structures that care for the material needs of everyone- then adults should be MORE willing to have children rather than less- at least based upon concern for their material welfare.
Rather, I think the declining birthrates- both in Europe and America- do indeed exist because of a culture of selfishness. There is more to greed than money, although that is a part of it. There is a selfishness of lifestyle. Young married couples who contracept or abort because they don’t want to give up the lifestyle they have- go out when you want, stay out late, go on vacation with other adult friends, etc.
Pax.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
No I was not aware that adultery was illegal in any state. Wisconsin needs to enforce this law or else it is meaningless. It is illegal under the UCMJ and the military courts do enforce it. I also think that there should be a constitutional amendment to protect marriage which includes ending all no fault divorce and requiring a 2 year seperation before divorce proceedings can start. Then fault must be established and an evaluation by social workers if the marriage can be worked out. It should be difficult to obtain a divorce and it should be even more difficult to get remarried. This is how it is in many Catholic countries. There should also be required a 1 year waiting period with mandatory counseling for couples under 25 before a marriage can take place. There is evidence that the brain is not fully developed until you are 25 so couples need to fully understand the gravity of getting married and that it is a vocation.
Peace,
David
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Very interesting thoughts on marriage David.
Adultery is indeed illegal under the UCMJ. It is prosecuted…sometimes. Other times, adultery goes on right out in the open with full knowledge of the service member(s) command- and nothing is done. It depends on having good people in charge and setting a proper example of conduct.
I remember when Gen. Krulak wanted to not allow enlisted Marines to be married during their first period of enlistment. Practically speaking it makes loads of sense. It does raise some legal questions though. It is an idea with merit, as are yours.
Would your constitutional ammendment to protect marriage, include a definition of it as between ONE man and ONE woman? I just want to make sure I understand what you are proposing.
Pax.
Adultery is indeed illegal under the UCMJ. It is prosecuted…sometimes. Other times, adultery goes on right out in the open with full knowledge of the service member(s) command- and nothing is done. It depends on having good people in charge and setting a proper example of conduct.
I remember when Gen. Krulak wanted to not allow enlisted Marines to be married during their first period of enlistment. Practically speaking it makes loads of sense. It does raise some legal questions though. It is an idea with merit, as are yours.
Would your constitutional ammendment to protect marriage, include a definition of it as between ONE man and ONE woman? I just want to make sure I understand what you are proposing.
Pax.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
This is not greed it is selfishness. However Dan not everyone is called to the vocation of marriage. I personally think there are a lot of people who get married but where not called to that vocation and the marriage fails. Although if one is not called to nthe vocation of marriage then they are called to some other vocation that is in service to others and not self. But none of this has anything to do with social welfare.
This was a surprise answer! But I have to agree with you. Even if abortion is made illegal the heart must be converted or abortions will still be obtained. But the law is a matter of justice and abortion is a violation against human dignity. Abortion being looked upon by the law as a right women should naturally have cheapens the dignity of humanity and becomes a slippery slope. Abortion cheapens human life so that economics trumps human life in places like Arizona where Governor Jan Brewer became a death panal and took away the Medicaid benefits of organ transplants for the poor which has sentanced 99 poor Arizona residents to death. Three have already died.
You get no argument from me here! Good points.
Peace,
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I’m not sure how you are differentiated between greed and selfishness. I see them as two sides of the same coin. Can you explain how they are different in your eyes David?
P
psychicharvard
Guest
Now you are attempting to define what is good and what is evil for Catholics. And you are using the opinions of Fox News political opinionists as the gold standard. Really? You want us to actually follow tv personalities as moral standards? Nope, we have too much intelligence for that.
And, no Pope Pius X was NOT referring to that as TRUE Socialism. And don’t try and get out of the fact that you were attempting to use the Pope Pius’s quote into manipulating people into believing that Socialism was directly against the Catholic Church.
The only reason you NOW say that your point was to equate Socialism of 1931 Totalitarian Government with the present United States, the country that just let G.M. get away with paying no taxes, and subsidizes oil companies, is because you got called out on it. And now you try to make yourself look good by saying you have the courage to call it out? As if repeating everything Glenn Beck says takes courage?
And the U.S. is not attempting to put in a Totalitarian government. Do you even know what that is? That would mean 1) A dictator, 2) everyday life activities overran by the military, 3) no elections, 4) no freedom the press, 5) state governed religion or state governed atheism, 6) no separation of church and state, and 7) no freedom of speech from the citizens. Do you see Obama making this happen? NO.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Do I think Obama would like it if this did happen? Absolutely.
Steps in the direction of almost all those things have been going on for sometime, under the guidance of both major parties. If the changes occured to rapidly, people would resist more fiercely. It’s the old cooking a frog in a pot analogy. If you make it too hot initially, the frog jumps out…but if you warm the water slowly, the frog never jumps and is cooked to death.
One of the primary obstacles to this coming to happen is point #2 above. Military officers and NCOs are a pretty conservative bunch, and many would resist orders to go beyond their constitutional duties. Perhaps cooincidentaly, Obama has talked about creating a parallel “civilian army” and is also trying to change that conservative military culture with steps like permitting openly homosexual service members.
Pax.
Z
zz912
Guest
Then socialism is contrary to God’s will because it raises the costs to raise children to prohibitive levels. Either way, socialism is contrary to God.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Leaving aside the Catonian aphorisms…birth rates are declining in this country as well. This is attributed by many analysts as being a result of the economic recession. It doesn’t seem to matter what political system is in play, birth rates are declining, particularly among those of European descent. Considering the accelerated depletion of Earth’s non-renewable resources that increasing population must cause, I would be happy to see birth rates achieve an ecologically sustainable level in all countries among all populations, as long as abortion is not being used as the means of birth rate reduction.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
A successful secular chastity movement would be a great thing.You’ll get no argument from me here.
I would love a secular chastity movement, parallel to what the Everts do, but I would like it started by women, because I truly believe that women are the key. They keep saying Yes. It’s particularly the young women who have recently admitted that they feel pressured by men to have sex while unmarried. It’s in your power, ladies!
There was a secular chastity movement that was operative in the '90’s (featured on 60 Minutes), but it seems to have fizzled out.
I almost taught 9th grade health a couple of years ago, although at the last minute the administration of the school gave me more 8th grade science instead, and I didn’t get any health classes in my teaching schedule. However, I was looking forward to it, because even though teachers have to follow state content standards, we do have some, limited flexibility within the pacing plan, so long as those standards are covered. If I were to teach health this year, I would spend any discretionary time remaining in the term on the subjects of chastity and teen pregnancy. I would also push very, very hard for the use of infant simulators. I know I already said this in another post, but I think one semester of health education in 12 years of schooling is grossly insufficient. Health education, particularly in the areas of sexuality and family planning, needs to start earlier, perhaps as early as 7th grade, and needs to be more extensive.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Physch, if I am reading you here correctly you have totally misinterpreted what I have been saying. I agree with you whole heartedly that President Obama and the Democrats are NOT Marxist. In fact, i like President Obama! I voted for him! And I am going to vote for him again!Now you are attempting to define what is good and what is evil for Catholics. And you are using the opinions of Fox News political opinionists as the gold standard. Really? You want us to actually follow tv personalities as moral standards? Nope, we have too much intelligence for that.
And, no Pope Pius X was NOT referring to that as TRUE Socialism. And don’t try and get out of the fact that you were attempting to use the Pope Pius’s quote into manipulating people into believing that Socialism was directly against the Catholic Church.
The only reason you NOW say that your point was to equate Socialism of 1931 Totalitarian Government with the present United States, the country that just let G.M. get away with paying no taxes, and subsidizes oil companies, is because you got called out on it. And now you try to make yourself look good by saying you have the courage to call it out? As if repeating everything Glenn Beck says takes courage?
And the U.S. is not attempting to put in a Totalitarian government. Do you even know what that is? That would mean 1) A dictator, 2) everyday life activities overran by the military, 3) no elections, 4) no freedom the press, 5) state governed religion or state governed atheism, 6) no separation of church and state, and 7) no freedom of speech from the citizens. Do you see Obama making this happen? NO.
I’m with you also on huge corporations paying no taxes and I think tax breaks for the rich are unjust and is a key componant to our countries financial problems. I think that much of our spending is neccassary and that we are NOT over spending on programs like Medicare and Social Security but that the aging population is getting larger and therefore the spending must get larger which means we need more revenue. I also do not think the rich should collect social security and should pay very large deductables and higher premiums for Medicare. I think it is the rich who are bankrupting our nation. I believe that collective bargaining for just wages should be a constitutional ammendment, A just wage is the legitamate fruits of work. Please go back, read a few of my posts, ask people on this board to verify what I have expressed on this board.
And YES, I believe FOX News and their chronies as well as Rush Limbaugh are the voice of modern conservatism, I define right and wrong by virtue of what is taught by the Church as well as the scriptures and dictated by my conscience. I don’t believe anything I have defined as right or wrong on this board can be falsefied by the teachings of the Church and I do my very best to back up the things I passionately believe by virtue of the scriptures, the CCC, and Papal Encyclicals (which I personally believe are inspired by the Holy Spirit and extensions of Holy Writ).
Peace Be With You,
David
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Yes it may raise legal questions but sometimes laws or lack of laws impede mor violate the common good. Laws should always be made to promote and protect the common good. Marriage is a very serious matter and it affects the lives of many people. It simply cannot be entered lightly or out of heated passion but by careful consideration, council and prayer. Neither can marriage be ended so easily
The short answer to this question is YES. But I do not believe that defining what a marriage is protects marriage. Although defining marriage as between a man and a woman may serve as protecting its meaning and intent.
I am sympathetic towards the gay community NOT because of sexuality but as a matter of legal recognition that such domestic partnerships are a type of unorthodox family unit and that there should be civil legal recognition for health care benefits, and the benefactors of such unions when there is a death. This would also especially be the case for unmarried couples who have been together for many years and have children together.
With that said I strongly believe that sex only belongs in marriage (Man +Woman) and when someone has sex outside of marriage it is a vioilation against chastity and a mortal sin which requires the sacrament of reconciliation with a firm ammendment to avoid and turn away from such sin in the near future. This can never change.
Pax Vobis,
David.
E
estesbob
Guest
The church neither endorses nor opposes the conservative approach, the Republican approach, the Democrat approach or the liberal approach to solving the problems facing this country. . The Church has categorically condemned socialism and communism no matter how you want to twist these definitions to apply to those who oppose your political views and media figures you not like. You have not supported what you have said other than cut and paste paragraphs from Church documents and demanded we accept your personal definition of what they mean.
Here are some clear concise statements from members of the magestium for you to consider when wondering if a Catholic can embrace the modern liberal philosophy:
*Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
*
Archbishop Charles Chaput
*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” he said.
“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” he said*
Cardinal Raymopnd Burke
D
davidmlamb
Guest
PART I
*"No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.”
In this Encyclical Pope Paul VI is not condemning communism or socialism as unbridled liberalism and tyranny, he is condemning a laissez-faire Capitalism, which He said can never be condemned enough is what the right wing branch of government supports today.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204
A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206
2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
These are clear and concise statments you need to consider estesbob. You cannot pick and choose what parts of Catholic teaching you’re going to adhere to and neither can you use a political candidate opposition to an intrinsic evil in order to ignore, show indifference towards or promote other intrinsic evils or matters involving human life and dignity. So while you claim I cannot embrace modern liberalism it is clear you cannot embrace modern conservatism either. Rather, you must embrace Catholic teaching by being a faithful citizen with a well informed conscience which leads to prudence when voting and prudential judgments on matters of political policies that affect human life and human dignity.
Pax Vobis,
David
END OF PART I
You have ZERO evidence that I have misrepresented or “twisted” Catholic teachings.The Papal Social Encyclicals and the CCC citations I posted simply speak for themselves; what they mean are self evident. So your dissagreement is not with me but with Church teaching. You should also know that the Church has also condemned capitalism in the very same documents it condemns communism. Here once again are the citations and we can let them interpret themselves:
*"No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.”
- However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.
In this Encyclical Pope Paul VI is not condemning communism or socialism as unbridled liberalism and tyranny, he is condemning a laissez-faire Capitalism, which He said can never be condemned enough is what the right wing branch of government supports today.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204
A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206
2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
These are clear and concise statments you need to consider estesbob. You cannot pick and choose what parts of Catholic teaching you’re going to adhere to and neither can you use a political candidate opposition to an intrinsic evil in order to ignore, show indifference towards or promote other intrinsic evils or matters involving human life and dignity. So while you claim I cannot embrace modern liberalism it is clear you cannot embrace modern conservatism either. Rather, you must embrace Catholic teaching by being a faithful citizen with a well informed conscience which leads to prudence when voting and prudential judgments on matters of political policies that affect human life and human dignity.
Pax Vobis,
David
END OF PART I
D
davidmlamb
Guest
PART II
*Making Moral Choices
34…A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, **if the voter’sintent is to support that position. **In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to otherimportant moral issues involving human life and dignity..
Pax Vobis,
David Lamb
The statements you provided to support your argument represent the opinion of individual Cardinals and Bishops who in part dissent from the teaching of the Magesterium. While his condemnation of abortion is in union with church teaching his statement that a person may never vote for a person who holds a “pro choice view” is a dissenting opinion and in schism from the Magesterium. The official position of the Catholic Church on the matter of being a faithful citizen with regard to the American voter is found in* “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility”* from the Catholic Bishops of the United States (USCCB). It received a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur in November of 2007 when it was first published. You can download the PDF version on line and I encourage you to read the entire document. Here is some citations which are pertinent to this discussion:
*Making Moral Choices
- Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a wellformed
conscience aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with
outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its
protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or
legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.
34…A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, **if the voter’sintent is to support that position. **In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to otherimportant moral issues involving human life and dignity..
Pax Vobis,
David Lamb
- Status