HomeschoolDad:
I would like to see a subforum called “The Bull Session - Off-Topic Meanderings Welcome”
I thought that was almost every section already
Last edited:
- Status
That is probably the best we will ever be able ultimately to achieve in this country. Below a certain threshold, “is this a human life worthy of protection?” becomes a theological argument, not a legal one. I do not find this acceptable, but we do not live in a Catholic commonwealth.
It would save some babies, and that’s better than not saving them.
K
KMC
Guest
This is the reason to discuss this…its all about truth.
- Yes, Biden is Catholic
- If he were a private citizen and hold the positions he does, a thread like this would be most inappropriate
- This issue is not about Biden’s soul…that is between him and God
- The issue is not about him receiving the Eucharist…that is between him, his bishop and God
- The issue is scandal. The issue is people thinking his views are in line with the CC. The views of other public figures who try to live according the the teachings of the Church founded by Christ, like Amy Coney Barrett, are viewed as extremists or nuts. The CC struggles to bring in people because we’re a horribly catechized bunch, and many of our very public members hold heterodox views. Based on the polls of what Catholics believe, the odds are if a non-Catholic asks a Catholic what they believe, the non-Catholic will not get an answer in line with the teachings of the Church. Joe Biden is part of the problem…and because he is a public figure…he must be called out about his heterodox views whenever he speaks up about being Catholic.
N
Naga
Guest
This response was meant for a post by Fide, but it appears the post may have been deleted (difficult to tell on my phone):
I think that this is a fundamental point of disagreement. What is a country? A land mass with a government? A set of commonly-held beliefs? Something else?
With disagreements like this, it is clear to me why there is such a deep divide in the United States. Foundationally, the United States was largely built on the principles of freedom of association and the minimization of government involvement in the lives of the citizens. In the past century, the government has moved toward having a more expansive level of control over the lives of the citizens.
What we are seeing today in the United States is the byproduct of this: One side wants more individual freedom, while the other wants more governmental control. One side necessarily requires the other to stop involving itself, and the other side necessarily requires involving itself in the affairs of the aforementioned side.
In the past year, the efforts of the pro-control side have noticeably ramped up. This is why we are seeing the violence we are seeing. The Democratic party, having been taken over by these people, has been broadly enabling it in the cities and states they control via hampering the efforts of law enforcement and declining to seriously prosecute many of those committing violence. This violence is ultimately being blamed on the other side for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.
On the other side, you have those who generally want to be left alone to live their own lives, who are reaching the limits of their ability to tolerate the behavior of the pro-control side. Trump, a political outsider, commandeered the Republican party and ran a campaign meant to strike a chord with these people. By all appearances, he succeeded.
Now these people are inaccurately being blamed for the violence that is occuring. People belonging to this side have been violently attacked and, in at least one case, murdered for belonging to this side. Some of those that have tried to stop the violence have been demonized and punished for their actions. The pro-control side has shown no sign of being open to authentically compromising with the other side to maintain societal cohesion. For this reason, many on the pro-freedom side are beginning to arrive at the conclusion that the time for continuing to tolerate the actions of the pro-control side is coming to and end. It is difficult to find fault in this conclusion.
Pray for peace.
I think that this is a fundamental point of disagreement. What is a country? A land mass with a government? A set of commonly-held beliefs? Something else?
With disagreements like this, it is clear to me why there is such a deep divide in the United States. Foundationally, the United States was largely built on the principles of freedom of association and the minimization of government involvement in the lives of the citizens. In the past century, the government has moved toward having a more expansive level of control over the lives of the citizens.
What we are seeing today in the United States is the byproduct of this: One side wants more individual freedom, while the other wants more governmental control. One side necessarily requires the other to stop involving itself, and the other side necessarily requires involving itself in the affairs of the aforementioned side.
In the past year, the efforts of the pro-control side have noticeably ramped up. This is why we are seeing the violence we are seeing. The Democratic party, having been taken over by these people, has been broadly enabling it in the cities and states they control via hampering the efforts of law enforcement and declining to seriously prosecute many of those committing violence. This violence is ultimately being blamed on the other side for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.
On the other side, you have those who generally want to be left alone to live their own lives, who are reaching the limits of their ability to tolerate the behavior of the pro-control side. Trump, a political outsider, commandeered the Republican party and ran a campaign meant to strike a chord with these people. By all appearances, he succeeded.
Now these people are inaccurately being blamed for the violence that is occuring. People belonging to this side have been violently attacked and, in at least one case, murdered for belonging to this side. Some of those that have tried to stop the violence have been demonized and punished for their actions. The pro-control side has shown no sign of being open to authentically compromising with the other side to maintain societal cohesion. For this reason, many on the pro-freedom side are beginning to arrive at the conclusion that the time for continuing to tolerate the actions of the pro-control side is coming to and end. It is difficult to find fault in this conclusion.
Pray for peace.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
In other news, water is wet
I’m not sure why you’re telling me this.
The point I’m trying to make is that there are no Trumps or Bidens or cardinals Burkes in the country I live in, and I don’t feel much interest in them, except for the presidential candidates’ potential impact on “foreign” (for you, not me) policy.
As far as I’m concerned, the president (for 2020, our ministers take turns serving as president each year) is called Simonetta Sommaruga, and the country’s cardinals are called Kurt Koch and Henri Schwery.
Abortion was already possible up to term for medical reasons, but now having an abortion at any time during the pregnancy has been made legal for cases of “psycho-social distress”, which is so loose a term it doesn’t really mean anything.
F
fide
Guest
Truth, fortunately, is not determined by numbers, not even numbers of bishops. The question is, what is right, and just, and true?
F
fide
Guest
I can’t think of what post of mine this could have been your response to.
N
Naga
Guest
It was a post of yours responding to something about the destruction of the nation, socialism/communism, etc.
S
SeekSalvation
Guest
We do have many Pharisees in today’s Church where modernism/materialism appears to infiltrated our Lord’s Church. Cardinal Burke is no Pharisee.
Last edited:
F
fide
Guest
I gave your post a “heart” - but in this case, because of the painful truth of your post, read it the suffering heart of Mary, whose heart and soul are so wounded by many such, in our Church today.
F
fide
Guest
OK - that makes sense, then. Post #31 maybe?
N
Naga
Guest
It looks like it. My phone gave me a message when I tapped “reply” that made it seem like the post was no longer there.
S
stpurl
Guest
If you had stopped with only his bishop can excommunicate, that would have been wonderful.
If you had even stopped with ‘not all bishops agree’ that would have still been all right.
But you HAD to put in, “in fact few do’. . .and whoosh, off you slipped.
“Truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”
The ‘number’ of people who believe in or practice an action has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the action or practice is right or wrong. Truth isn’t ‘majority rules’. So even the appearance of an argument of, “well gee only a FEW people believe like this guy” (implying, “fringe group, probably wrong”) can make an otherwise acceptable post look like a snark attack, sadly.
If you had even stopped with ‘not all bishops agree’ that would have still been all right.
But you HAD to put in, “in fact few do’. . .and whoosh, off you slipped.
“Truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”
The ‘number’ of people who believe in or practice an action has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the action or practice is right or wrong. Truth isn’t ‘majority rules’. So even the appearance of an argument of, “well gee only a FEW people believe like this guy” (implying, “fringe group, probably wrong”) can make an otherwise acceptable post look like a snark attack, sadly.
Last edited:
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
At this point he is better than the embarrassing alternative.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
I think it’s a larger issue for all public figures who claim to be Catholic but do not adhere to the teachings of the Church. Whether it’s pro-choice politicians or actors who have families out of wedlock, common people see them as representative of the Church. When the Church fails to publicly correct them for their public scandal it essentially condones the behavior. Unfortunately very few bishops see this.
Last edited:
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It’s what canon law says.
One Bishop can’t override another Bishop in such issues. Each of us is under the Bishop of our dioceses.
One Bishop can’t override another Bishop in such issues. Each of us is under the Bishop of our dioceses.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Actually, the Pharisees are those who are so rigid, they ignore mercy and compassion as Jesus taught. They’re no different than the Pharisees of Jesus day.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
That may be, but it’s not up to us lay people to decide.
- Status