Crimeans Who Ushered in the Russians Now Have to Live With Their Choice

[pepipop]

This would be like the U.S. orchestrating a referendum in Quebec for it to leave Canada and become an American state, and for the U.S. to send lots of American soldiers to supervise the voting in said referendum. There’s no way that’s even remotely legal or (more importantly) legitimate. In fact I think it’s considered an invasion and an act of war.

Was Quebec ever part of the USA? Has it a majority US population that wish to be with the USA?

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

And how does an autocrat (saint that he/she may be) hold his/her power over the people (when people are sinners with fallen natures)?

All reinforced in the social and economic order of the society. It is not like one person controls a socially and economically homogenous mass of minions. There is a hierarchy, reinforced through the economic and legal arrangement of the state.

Typically, there the ruler is accompanied by a society divided into a high, middle and working class.

I try to quickly summarise, since a thorough analysis of any government or society would require a long treatise, which at the present moment, I have neither the time nor energy to compose.

On another ‘lighter’ subject:
You asked me to be good to the youth when I am older. I will try. However, you should know that even at 21 I have (and always had trouble) being understanding of the young generations. I always had a greater affinity to adults, especially older adults, even as a child. I always felt far more at ease/enjoyed myself in their company than among those of my generation.

 

[josie_L]

All reinforced in the social and economic order of the society. It is not like one person controls a socially and economically homogenous mass of minions. There is a hierarchy, reinforced through the economic and legal arrangement of the state.

Typically, there is the ruler accompanied by a society divided into a high, middle and low class.

I try to quickly summarise, since a thorough analysis of any government or society would require a long treatise, which at the present moment, I have neither the time nor energy to compose.

This all great in theory, but in practice it will have all the pitfalls and dangers that come with an autocracy, especially since people are both good and/or bad, i.e., it is a lot easier to kill an autocrat and seize control of a country than it is to kill a whole parliament.

p.s. I do not, as been proven by the annals of history, believe autocracy is the answer to bringing about a good and just society, if anything it has brought the opposite.

 

[boar2roar]

Which is the problem? The lack of a dictatorship that some consider moral or a lack of proper catechesis in the churches?

I say it’s the latter. When is the last time you heard a priest preach from the pulpit about chastity? About homosexuality? About pornography? “Back in the day”, I am informed, Catholics had an enormous influence on the entertainment media. If you see old movies on, say, TCM, you can see it. Why was that? It was because there was proper teaching and the priests and bishops were not hesitant to condemn or praise this show or that movie or this book or that other form of entertainment. And Catholics actually listened to them.

Would they (we) listen now? It might be a bumpy start, but over time, I think Catholics would. I say we need more gumption in the chanceries, for a start.

Well as an example people born during Franco’s government statsitically are deeply religious. The generations of Spaniards born after are among the most secular in Europe. I don’t think church catechism changed that drastically it was something else. Leadership and government play a big role and unfortunately liberal elites control the culture and government in the west…

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

This all great in theory, but in practice it will have all the pitfalls and dangers that come with an autocracy, especially since people are both good and/or bad, i.e., it is a lot easier to kill an autocrat and seize control of a country than it is to kill a whole parliament.

p.s. I do not, as been proven by the annals of history, believe autocracy is the answer to bringing about a good and just society, if anything it has brought the opposite.

A few things.
You have to remember who writes the history. As a westerner under a liberal order, the history you read will be unfavourable to illiberal systems and will perhaps exaggerate and create the image of despotism. The reverse is true of illiberal systems. If a history ‘proves’, then it is already biased in some sense.

No system has truly brought about a good and just society. This is the reality of our existence. Each social system has an equal amount of positives and ills. It is only the nature of these positives and ills that changes. Some systems are more conducive toward morality but terrible for equality, and vice versa. Generally (please keep this word in mind), no society is truly better than others, since each system involves the flawed actions of mankind.

 

[Tomdstone]

I am repeating myself, but perhaps for the best.

It takes only one saint to make a good Autocracy.
It takes several saints to make a good Oligarchy.
It takes many saints to make a good Aristocracy
It takes an impossible majority to make a good Democracy.

If one man rules, naturally, it concentrates power. Yet, the benefit is the possibility of appeal to an individual conscience. There are numerous examples of kings changing their actions simply because of a personal appeal to their conscience.
In short, the rule of an autocrat maintains the primacy of human relations, rather than an that of dehumanised, abstract interests.

Julius Caesar was not satisfied with being named dictator for life, but wanted to be king. The Roman Senate was not too happy about that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I disagree with this analogy. ‘Real life’ and the law of the land effect a population immensely, whatever a person’s religious background is - if they are lukewam, then they will be easily swayed.

Homosexuality was defined as a mental illness and illegal when most of the TCM films were being produced, children born out of wedlock were frowned upon and/or mothers were institutionalised, and the CC was held in high esteem. In other words some ‘sins’ were condemned, legally or socially, in that era.

Unfortunately, a lot has happened in between both legally and with the church.

I think it would be great to see priests preach on the topics above mentioned, however would it work in this day and age, with the ‘lukewarm’ brigade growing up and being indoctrinated by the media and through day-to-day life, that sinful behaviours are actually normal and acceptable, e.g. abortion, contraception, easier divorce and higher rates, SSM, etc, or would it distance the congregation even further.

I respectfully disagree. I believe the moral teachings of churches affect societal mores, though I would admit that political and societal laws and attitudes do as well. I have often said, for example, that if Catholics refused to vote for Democrats because of abortion for two four-year election cycles in a row, the Democrat party would abandon its devotion to abortion. Nothing persuades erstwhile officeholders like the prospect of never being elected. If moviemakers became convinced that they would lose, say, 30% of potential viewers because of the content, I think they would find a way to make them less offensive.
Would 30% not go? Maybe not at first. But 10% and growing would, I think, have a dramatic effect. 10% is a little less than 1/2 of the Catholics in the U.S. and probably more than 1/2 of the Catholic young people who are big moviegoers.

Sinful things such as abortion, contraception, etc are not thought of as sinful by a lot of people because their own teachers have never told them that. Instead, the message for some 40 years now has been “social justice lite”. It has taken awhile for churchmen in the U.S. to persuade a lot of Catholics that thinking of themselves as non-racist and voting for higher taxes (largely on someone else) supposedly to “help the poor” is the height of virtue. People can be persuaded over time, and persuaded people affect the laws over time. It isn’t as if they were not persuaded of anything at all.

It’s really a closed loop.

 

[Tomdstone]

This would be like the U.S. orchestrating a referendum in Quebec for it to leave Canada and become an American state, and for the U.S. to send lots of American soldiers to supervise the voting in said referendum. There’s no way that’s even remotely legal or (more importantly) legitimate. In fact I think it’s considered an invasion and an act of war.

No. Quebec has never been a part of the USA and further, there has never been a vote by the people of Quebec to join the USA. They don’t want to be part of the USA. The language in Quebec is French for the most part. The language in the USA is English or Spanish for the most part. The situation in Crimea is completely different with 93% of the people supporting a return to Mother Russia. The language in Crimea is mostly Russian and they feared a suppression of their language rights by Kiev, which had voted to make Ukrainian the national language. They overwhelmingly wanted to return to their Russian Motherland.

 

[Tomdstone]

No, the people of Crimea did not fully welcome Putin or his troops:

The original interview can be accessed from this link, but it’s in Russian.

We have been over this interview by this individual before. It has been reported that he is mentally ill.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think church catechism changed that drastically it was something else. …

You wouldn’t say that if you laid old Baltimore Catechisms side-by-side with what passes for catechisms today and compared them. Try it.

The official, huge, Catechism of the Catholic Church is a different thing altogether. But at least in Catholic schools, what the students get there is pretty much what they’re going to get other than what they’re taught at home.

 

[Tomdstone]

Was Quebec ever part of the USA? Has it a majority US population that wish to be with the USA?

Was Quebec ever part of the USA? NO
Has it a majority US population that wish to be with the USA? NO

The situation with Crimea wanting to return to Mother Russia is entirely different.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I respectfully disagree. I believe the moral teachings of churches affect societal mores, though I would admit that political and societal laws and attitudes do as well. I have often said, for example, that if Catholics refused to vote for Democrats because of abortion for two four-year election cycles in a row, the Democrat party would abandon its devotion to abortion. Nothing persuades erstwhile officeholders like the prospect of never being elected. If moviemakers became convinced that they would lose, say, 30% of potential viewers because of the content, I think they would find a way to make them less offensive.
Would 30% not go? Maybe not at first. But 10% and growing would, I think, have a dramatic effect. 10% is a little less than 1/2 of the Catholics in the U.S. and probably more than 1/2 of the Catholic young people who are big moviegoers.

Sinful things such as abortion, contraception, etc are not thought of as sinful by a lot of people because their own teachers have never told them that. Instead, the message for some 40 years now has been “social justice lite”. It has taken awhile for churchmen in the U.S. to persuade a lot of Catholics that thinking of themselves as non-racist and voting for higher taxes (largely on someone else) supposedly to “help the poor” is the height of virtue. People can be persuaded over time, and persuaded people affect the laws over time. It isn’t as if they were not persuaded of anything at all.

It’s really a closed loop.

And, of course, the moral teachings of the Church are not up for debate (whether they are taught or not; whether they are followed or not).

 

[Tomdstone]

I respectfully disagree. I believe the moral teachings of churches affect societal mores, though I would admit that political and societal laws and attitudes do as well. I have often said, for example, that if Catholics refused to vote for Democrats because of abortion for two four-year election cycles in a row, the Democrat party would abandon its devotion to abortion. Nothing persuades erstwhile officeholders like the prospect of never being elected. If moviemakers became convinced that they would lose, say, 30% of potential viewers because of the content, I think they would find a way to make them less offensive.
Would 30% not go? Maybe not at first. But 10% and growing would, I think, have a dramatic effect. 10% is a little less than 1/2 of the Catholics in the U.S. and probably more than 1/2 of the Catholic young people who are big moviegoers.

Sinful things such as abortion, contraception, etc are not thought of as sinful by a lot of people because their own teachers have never told them that. Instead, the message for some 40 years now has been “social justice lite”. It has taken awhile for churchmen in the U.S. to persuade a lot of Catholics that thinking of themselves as non-racist and voting for higher taxes (largely on someone else) supposedly to “help the poor” is the height of virtue. People can be persuaded over time, and persuaded people affect the laws over time. It isn’t as if they were not persuaded of anything at all.

It’s really a closed loop.

Yelena Mizulina tried to restrict access to abortion in Russia, but she was sanctioned by the Americans.

 

[pepipop]

And, of course, the moral teachings of the Church are not up for debate (whether they are taught or not; whether they are followed or not).

Precisely, however lukewarm Catholics, although still attending mass every Sunday - with constant media onslaught and no doubt with non-practicing friends, acquaintances, family members can easily be swayed. In addition to family members that are gay, living together, using IVF, etc., etc they do not wish to judge them. They may still believe they are fully ‘Catholic’ and name themselves as such but do not follow the CC teachings. Hence if they are preached to from the pulpit about ‘sins’ that are now acceptable to the rest of the world, it may steer more away from the church.

However, I do also agree with Ridgerunner that a lukewarm Catholic listening to such sermons each Sunday that possibly the message would eventually hit home, at some point (just as the MSM messages sway people’s thinking because they hear it often enough) and make them search further into their faith.

A bit of a double edged sword.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No. Quebec has never been a part of the USA and further, there has never been a vote by the people of Quebec to join the USA. They don’t want to be part of the USA. The language in Quebec is French for the most part. The language in the USA is English or Spanish for the most part. The situation in Crimea is completely different with 93% of the people supporting a return to Mother Russia. The language in Crimea is mostly Russian and they feared a suppression of their language rights by Kiev, which had voted to make Ukrainian the national language. They overwhelmingly wanted to return to their Russian Motherland.

It actually came close, twice, at least on the non-American side.

I recall reading that several decades ago Saskatchewan (which is more like the U.S. than it is like a good part of Canada) made some tentative moves in that direction because they were angry with Toronto’s politics. It never got off the ground because the U.S. was not interested. Also, whatever state of Mexico Monterrey is in did so as well, and it was entirely serious because Monterrey was then the industrial heart of Mexico and despised the half-hearted socialism then affecting Mexico. Same result.

No, the vote to separate from Ukraine in Crimea was 125% of the eligible voters, and joining Russia wasn’t on the ballot. The fake referendum was taken and Russia just annexed Crimea without further pretense.

The “national language” thing is a fake issue. All it meant was that, of the few Ukrainians who couldn’t speak Ukrainian (most are bilingual and the languages aren’t that different) they would, for example, not be able to insist on a trial entirely in Russian. They would, if needed, require translators for judges and opponents who did speak Ukrainian. If Russian is an “official language”, then if a solely Russian-speaking litigant insisted on a trial entirely in Russian, then the Ukrainian-speaking judges and litigants would require translators if they were not fully bilingual. All documents, all evidence would have to be in Russian. The same is true of legal publications. They would not all have to be printed in both languages. Does anybody really think nobody would bother to provide a set in the other language? For people in the U.S. who are accustomed to seeing everything duplicated in English and Spanish (sometimes French) by absolutely everybody, this is not a persuasive reason to insist that one’s country be truncated and part handed over to a foreign power, particularly one that had committed genocide of their own people.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yelena Mizulina tried to restrict access to abortion in Russia, but she was sanctioned by the Americans.

Obama is capable of doing it for that reason, but there is no real evidence that was the case. She is a major political figure in Russia, and her husband is a very wealthy international trader, and she could have been sanctioned for that alone.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Precisely, however lukewarm Catholics, although still attending mass every Sunday - with constant media onslaught and no doubt with non-practicing friends, acquaintances, family members can easily be swayed. In addition to family members that are gay, living together, using IVF, etc., etc they do not wish to judge them. They may still believe they are fully ‘Catholic’ and name themselves as such but do not follow the CC teachings. Hence if they are preached to from the pulpit about ‘sins’ that are now acceptable to the rest of the world, it may steer more away from the church.

However, I do also agree with Ridgerunner that a lukewarm Catholic listening to such sermons each Sunday that possibly the message would eventually hit home, at some point (just as the MSM messages sway people’s thinking because they hear it often enough) and make them search further into their faith.

A bit of a double edged sword.

First of all, I don’t think any of us are in a position to judge the hearts of Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday. Second, given the decades of “social justice (very lite) is the only important thing” one would naturally want to go at it gradually. Here and there, it does happen, even now. There are, for example, dioceses that produce very large numbers of vocations. Vocations are reflective of a deep family-level faith, for the most part. When one finds that kind of diocese in the U.S., one also finds early and truthful presentations of Catholic teaching. it builds on itself. One notices as well (and statistics bear it out) younger priests nowadays are considerably more faithful to the magesterium of the Church than are their elders in the priesthood.

It’s not beyond repair.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Precisely, however lukewarm Catholics, although still attending mass every Sunday - with constant media onslaught and no doubt with non-practicing friends, acquaintances, family members can easily be swayed. In addition to family members that are gay, living together, using IVF, etc., etc they do not wish to judge them. They may still believe they are fully ‘Catholic’ and name themselves as such but do not follow the CC teachings. Hence if they are preached to from the pulpit about ‘sins’ that are now acceptable to the rest of the world, it may steer more away from the church.

However, I do also agree with Ridgerunner that a lukewarm Catholic listening to such sermons each Sunday that possibly the message would eventually hit home, at some point (just as the MSM messages sway people’s thinking because they hear it often enough) and make them search further into their faith.

A bit of a double edged sword.

I have always been rather in awe of the hard line Protestants (Evangelists). One of my best friends is one (we go back to high school days; very different people but still friends). She has really mellowed out these days, but when I was an atheist should would lecture me about my lifestyle. Actually tell me about hell and stuff. I thought she was nuts; I used to mock her behind her back. But it bothered me too. It gave me a picture of how other people lived. I felt inferior to her. Why? I think I knew she was right. Once she said to me that once you witness the truth of Christ to someone and they reject it, they go to hell. (of course if they repent that changes) Seriously. She just kind of shrugged. I thought that was so heartless - but, again, it is straight out of the Bible. Straight out of it. That is what I believe now too. I don’t know how much we can soften this stuff and stay in truth. Catholics get a little marshmellowy sometimes. It is a real dilemma: loving and trying to save people and giving way, sacrificing truth (for them and for you). Constant struggle.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have always been rather in awe of the hard line Protestants (Evangelists). One of my best friends is one (we go back to high school days; very different people but still friends). She has really mellowed out these days, but when I was an atheist should would lecture me about my lifestyle. Actually tell me about hell and stuff. I thought she was nuts; I used to mock her behind her back. But it bothered me too. It gave me a picture of how other people lived. I felt inferior to her. Why? I think I knew she was right. Once she said to me that once you witness the truth of Christ to someone and they reject it, they go to hell. (of course if they repent that changes) Seriously. She just kind of shrugged. I thought that was so heartless - but, again, it is straight out of the Bible. Straight out of it. That is what I believe now too. I don’t know how much we can soften this stuff and stay in truth. Catholics get a little marshmellowy sometimes. It is a real dilemma: loving and trying to save people and giving way, sacrificing truth (for them and for you). Constant struggle.

Possibly you know this already, but Flannery O’Connor opined that the future most fertile ground for conversions in the U.S. would be among Southern Fundamentalists. She also said that it shocks them to realize that they have more beliefs in common with the Catholic Church than they do with mainline Protestantism.

I believe both things. My parishes (I have two) both have a lot of converts. One of them grows by about 5%/year due to converts. Virtually all are from Fundamentalist backgrounds. It’s interesting that one of the things they find attractive (when they know about it) is precisely the clarity and certitude the CC offers. But the overwhelmingly biggest reason is that the Eucharist is “being close to Jesus” the desire of their hearts, in a way nothing in Protestantism can ever satisfy.

(I live in the Ozarks of Southern Missouri. As Bible Belt as it gets.)

 

[FollowChrist34]

Possibly you know this already, but Flannery O’Connor opined that the future most fertile ground for conversions in the U.S. would be among Southern Fundamentalists. She also said that it shocks them to realize that they have more beliefs in common with the Catholic Church than they do with mainline Protestantism.

I believe both things. My parishes (I have two) both have a lot of converts. One of them grows by about 5%/year due to converts. Virtually all are from Fundamentalist backgrounds. It’s interesting that one of the things they find attractive (when they know about it) is precisely the clarity and certitude the CC offers. But the overwhelmingly biggest reason is that the Eucharist is “being close to Jesus” the desire of their hearts, in a way nothing in Protestantism can ever satisfy.

(I live in the Ozarks of Southern Missouri. As Bible Belt as it gets.)

Yes, I know Flannery O’Connor very well. One of my favorites of all time. I have always loved what she does with Protestants in her work and yet is so Catholic all the way through. It is amazing and I think has actually fed my fondness and empathy with Protestants. But I do agree they miss out on the Eucharist and the fullness of the Church. My friend has grown so open to Catholics it is amazing (we don’t try to convert each other; we respect the other - very strong faiths each in our own way) . The Evangelists don’t hate on us the way they used to - at least the mainstream ones. I don’t think we hate on them anymore either. I do love to see them come into the Church - they mean business everywhere they go. Look out.