Dangerous Catholics

[Johann_du_Toit]

Sean Hannity has left the Catholic Church and now considers himself an Evangelical Baptist.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

I would say a dangerous Catholic is anyone who openly and publicly rejects and challenges settled Catholic beliefs, such as opposition to abortion, euthanasia, contraception and women’s ordination. I’m not going to make a list because I think most of those on this forum already know who would top such a list. (such as a certain New York Priest who rejects Church teaching on sexual issues).

I wouldn’t call Catholic celebrities who happen to set a bad example dangerous unless their religious beliefs are well known and it reflects badly on the Catholic population as a whole.

 

[Welshrabbit]

Well put…

 

[Metis1]

BTW, the stat I gave dealing with the estimated 1 million children who will be negatively affected by the SNAP cuts comes from “America” (Jesuit) magazine.

Also, the ACA helped millions of families to get basic healthcare, thus including children. The Pubs said that they would put forth their own plan but never did, including when the had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Also, the issue of climate change and it’s potential effects should be of great concern to all because of the tremendous risks involved to children as well, but the Pubs simply don’t care about that. Seems that Pub “talking points” are far more important than the welfare of children and parents to all so many Trump supporters. Even if one wasn’t sure of climate change, common sense should tell them that we should opt on the side of caution.

Thus, if the welfare of children isn’t really that important, make sure and vote Republican in 2020.

 

[upant]

Thus, if the welfare of children isn’t really that important, make sure and vote Republican in 2020.

what have the democrats done for children today? they abort them, they confuse them with their LGBT and transgender policies and teachings at the lowest grades, etc. we continue to tear apart the family with their policies. this isn’t Catholic teaching. don’t tell me about the money, there is a safety net for the needy and the GOP will keep it. a family would just have to prove they need it.

Also, the issue of climate change and it’s potential effects should be of great concern to all because of the tremendous risks involved to children as well, but the Pubs simply don’t care about that.

with China and India building new coal plants for 10 more years, the left really doesn’t care about the future. it is a wealth distribution scheme and they have been caught admitting it. AOC’s spokesperson was very frank, it is about economics.

our children need us to change what we have been doing and the democrat’s swing to supporting intrinsic evils isn’t the change we need.

 

[TheLittleLady]

the statistics are not important,

The statistics are very important.

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives | Guttmacher Institute

In 2005 “Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).”

The CDC over that same time frame reported the late-term abortion stat as " 1.3% at >21 weeks"

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives | Guttmacher Institute

Now, this is just what I could find quickly, I am surprised by the numbers. If I only look at these two stats, then, the Republican plan result in far, far more abortions than any late term abortion limits would.

 

[upant]

The statistics are very important.

not when we open the gates to more abortions, it can only mean the deaths of more babies. we are talking about future deaths.

In 2005 “Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).”

think of it as 87% of the babies would have lived under what you call the republican plan.

 

[Metis1]

Maybe some Pubs should write the Pope and tell him that his encyclical “Laudato Si” on climate change was just a leftist “wealth-distribution scheme”. I’m sure he’d be interested in knowing that.

And I’m sure the Pope would be interested in how he favor’s the Trump administration’s erosion of our safety net with the SNAP cutbacks and desire to end the ACA, and also how their putting children who have been seeking refuge with their parents should be put into cages here in the States with seven of them dying.

And while they’re at it, why not tell the Pope about how evil it is that the LBGT and transgender community exists and how they try to confuse us Catholics.

 

[upant]

Maybe some Pubs should write the Pope and tell him that his encyclical “Laudato Si” on climate change was just a leftist “wealth-distribution scheme”. I’m sure he’d be interested in knowing that.

is this document infallible? what is it based on?

the Paris agreement allows new coal plants for ten years, not much urgency there.

the green new deal, America’s plan…

In a report by the Washington Post, Saikat Chakrabarti revealed that "it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.

The heart of the Green New Deal is an economic upheaval that turns the U.S. government into the primary employer and economic force in the nation.

And I’m sure the Pope would be interested in how he favor’s the Trump administration’s erosion of our safety net with the SNAP cutbacks and desire to end the ACA, and also how their putting children who have been seeking refuge with their parents should be put into cages here in the States with seven of them dying.

are they cutbacks or just requiring people to prove they are eligible for SNAP? the cages weren’t new but it is a good talking point because we know what the Dems think of the American people.

the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public.

ACA was a scam from the moment Obama said your premiums wouldn’t go up and you can keep your doctor. Gruner’s statement above says it all, what else did they hide? what are they hiding now?

And while they’re at it, why not tell the Pope about how evil it is that the LBGT and transgender community exists and how they try to confuse us Catholics.

the pope knows

Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of St. Louis, said that while the Pope talked about abortion as a preeminent issue, at the same time he said there’s another significant issue and that would be ‘transgender’ — where we are trying to make all human beings the same, it makes no difference, you can be whoever you want to be.”

 

[Metis1]

I’m definitely siding with the Pope on the issues of climate change and basic universal health care, but everyone has to make their own choice whom to believe and whom to accept.

Two years ago I attended a 6 week seminar taught by two Dominicans on Laudato Si, whereas we went through PF’s encyclical that was based on the science he has been advised on.

But some people would obviously rather believe right-wing politicians and their media over the Pope and the Church and the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. I’m a scientist, now retired, and when one sees a consensus of them like we’re seeing on climate change, one can pretty much “take that to the bank”.

And why would one just blow them off, especially since there’s so many other benefits with going more “green”? That doesn’t even stand to basic logic.

 

[Metis1]

BTW, as typical with some here, we see some resort to the “abortion” card as if it justifies anything and everything that Trump & Co says and does. Again, one should beware of pandering, which Trump even brags about using successfully in his book “The Art of the Deal”.

Why is it that so many say they’re “Pro-Life” and yet support capital punishment? Recent popes, including PF, have stated that capital punishment is not “pro-life” in societies that have prisons and jails, and that it is immoral to take a life when there are alternatives.

And what about the issue of war? Was “shock & awe” pro-life? dropping the atomic bombs? fire-bombing Dresden and Tokyo? Etc. The Church has long taught the we should abide by the Just-War Theory, which would not excuse the above examples.

So, how many say they’'re “Pro-Life” and yet appears that this only includes abortions? In reality, that isn’t pro-life-- it’s called “picking & choosing”.

 

[upant]

But some people would obviously rather believe right-wing politicians and their media over the Pope and the Church and the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. I’m a scientist, now retired, and when one sees a consensus of them like we’re seeing on climate change, one can pretty much “take that to the bank”.

this overwhelming consensus (97%) was proven false. what was the sample size? what were the questions? the 97% number has been debunked.

as Bishop Fulton Sheen asked, who paid for it"

Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled. (Ian Tuttle)

the bottom line is the science isn’t settled.

And why would one just blow them off, especially since there’s so many other benefits with going more “green”? That doesn’t even stand to basic logic.

if we have all these benefits, why aren’t China and India building new green energy plants instead of new coal plants for the next ten years? this is what defies logic unless they know it is a lie and an excellent way to redistribute the wealth.

So, how many say they’'re “Pro-Life” and yet appears that this only includes abortions? In reality, that isn’t pro-life-- it’s called “picking & choosing”.

being against the killing of babies has nothing to do with anything else.

pro-life doesn’t have to be a catch-all name. the left groups them together for the same reason you did, to object to people who are against abortion. you can be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment (note the exclusion in your statement that allows one to be pro CP in certain circumstances). you can be anti-abortion and pro-means testing for benefits. you don’t need to believe in anything else to be anti-abortion. you can be pro-life for babies only.

 

[Metis1]

I have the science on this right if one actually bothers to check it out themselves through actual scientific sources that includes our NAS, NASA, NOAA, and other scientific agencies; and I have the Pope’s conclusion and encyclical on this right; thus I rest my case. I don’t parrot nor believe in Kellyanne Conway’s and Donald Trump’s “alternative facts”.

BTW, I am Pro-Life-- the real pro-life-- not the picky-choosy type.

 

[upant]

I have the science on this right if one actually bothers to check it out themselves through actual scientific sources

they have been saying the science is right for decades and all of their predictions of doom and gloom haven’t come true. something isn’t right. climate changes but not how and why the fearmongers predict.

the planet will be around until Jesus returns. His Word says it and I will take His Word over your science. (bold mine)

2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the LORD will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

The Lord Jesus will bring the doom and gloom you fear. The Lord will be the cause of real climate change! We are sent to make disciples not to worry about this temporal world.

BTW, I am Pro-Life-- the real pro-life-- not the picky-choosy type.

why do “pro-lifers” belittle those fighting abortion alone? babies need to be alive to fight for them.

the bottom line is how we vote! it is one of if not the best thing we can do in the anti-abortion fight.

 

[Metis1]

pro-life? why belittle those fighting abortion?

I’ve never done that, so with the above we’re done for good, as you’ve just have violated that we are not to “bear out false witness” Commandment.

bye

 

[upant]

I’ve never done that, so with the above we’re done for good, as you’ve just have violated that we are not to “bear out false witness” Commandment.

bye

it wasn’t a statement about you, but about pro-lifers that don’t seem to accept abortion alone people.

I edited for clarity and apologize if it caused you discomfort.

 

[Metis1]

Thanks, and I do accept your apology. Have a most Blessed Lord’s Day.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Pope St. Pius X also referred to Modernists as well as Modernism. C.f. Pascendi.

 

[Taras_Bulba]

Another thread begging for the down-vote functionality.

 

[Minks]

Any Catholic who displays behavior or speech that doesn’t reflect Catholic teachings is a danger to the faith in that non-Catholics might veer away from investigating the Church based upon what they’ve seen or how they’ve been treated.

Being Catholic isn’t easy. We must remember that we’re always on display in the non-Catholic world around us. If we’re the only Catholic that a non-Catholic knows, by association, he may unconsciously—or consciously—transfer our attributes or shortcomings to all Catholics or “The Catholic Church.”

The transgressions of the famous or well-known reach an audience of millions, but what we do in our own little worlds may have a far greater impact in influencing a non-Catholic to learn more about our faith.