M
Maximilian75
Guest
Yes, but I would say that, per capita/Catholic, America or Europe has far more papabiles than Africa or East Asia.
- Status
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Thanks! I tried Googling him, couldn’t find him when searching for “Cardinal Sin.” I just tried Googling “Bishop Sin” and found him.
Last edited:
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
An evil impulse like racism is the work of a demon.
Fast properly, and you can help eradicate the work of the demon (via God’s Grace).
Fast properly, and you can help eradicate the work of the demon (via God’s Grace).
A
Arkansan
Guest
There is a lot of racial bigotry, but the overwhelming majority of it is directed against whites (e.g. baselessly claiming that “white supremacy” is rampant, saying that white people honoring their heritage makes them Nazis)Arkansan:
In what way is it true then?
Last edited:
S
steido01
Guest
If you’re going to quote me, please do so in context without seizing on one phrase of one sentence of one paragraph of one portion of one post. I am obviously not advocating that virtues be pitted against each other. We have a responsibility as children in God’s Kingdom to love our neighbor, including our parents, those in authority, and our societies. This does not mean we should condone sin.
I am responding to those who’d deny the danger (or even the very existence!) of White Supremacy and its sibling White Nationalism. These evils exist, even within the church, because humans exist within the church. Racism, Separatism, Social Darwinism, Randianism… such human devices are all incompatible with Christianity.
These earthly ideologies become dangerous when people conflate them with their religion, effectively (ab)using their religion to justify their sin. This is what the Pharisees did when they responded to Jesus’s teachings by saying “We have Abraham for our father!” Nowadays, they might very well say, “Our forefathers made America great!”
In this respect, no human heritage matters.
Last edited:
S
steido01
Guest
Please define.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Yes. And the virtue of piety demands that we have well-ordered charity. One should love one’s own parents more than others, one’s own country more than others, etc.
Do you accuse Chinese nationalists of being "supremacists? What about Jewish nationalists? Or are whites different for some reason?
People deny that “white supremacy” exists because for all practical intents and purposes it doesn’t. People who claim it is prevalent hardly ever say what they mean, but by any reasonable interpretation of the words, it refers to an extremely cartoonish worldview with no detectable following.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Wishing to preserve their cultural and biological continuation, opposing the destruction of physical symbols of their heritage like statues, etc.Arkansan:
Please define.
S
steido01
Guest
If you’re using an ordered rule for providing charity to exclude and promote tribalism, you’re using it wrong. Religious rules cannot conflict with plain Scripture and Christ’s clear teachings. Jesus could not have been more clear about this. Who is your neighbor? Which was a neighbor to the man on the roadside?
When?
I’m not a Zionist, if that answers your question.
Pray tell, what culture would that be? I am “white” by any measure. I don’t know what culture is ‘mine.’ Is it the NASCAR-and-guns culture? The murdering babies culture? The angsty-teens-listening-to-rap culture? The two-kids-and-a-picket-fence culture? The back-in-my-day-we-listened-to-the-Beatles culture? The I-never-had-to-work-five-jobs-to-get-through-college culture?
America is a melting pot. It has no monolithic ‘culture,’ nor has it ever. Same for every country, frankly.
Ah, now we get closer to your true beliefs. Why do you wish to “preserve your biological continuation?”
A
Arkansan
Guest
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3026.htm
All men are our neighbors, but not all are equal in the order of charity. All of those who passed by the man on the roadside because he was in a condition of extreme necessity and they could have helped without serious detriment to themselves or others. This is no way refutes that there is an order in charity.
To the extent this is true it’s only due to mass immigration. America 60 years ago obviously had a culture, albeit with lots of regional subcultures.
The notion that no country has a single culture is laughable.
Why would any group not wish to continue existing as a group?
S
steido01
Guest
I’ve not said it does. I’ve said that anyone who uses a rule or order to exclude is using it wrong. Since you took me out of context, I want to make sure we’re at least on the same page.
Hopefully, you’d agree that it is most unloving to permit anyone to continue sinning, yes?
To the extent America even exists is due to mass immigration. America 240-some odd years ago had many cultures, even within its separated regions.
The notion that our country has ever had a single culture is historic revisionism of the most laughable sort.
S
steido01
Guest
No, no. You don’t get to skirt out of this one. I’ll ask again, why do you wish to, as you put it, ‘preserve your biological continuation?’ Against what are you preserving your ‘white biological continuation?’
E
exnihilo
Guest
No, America had a culture. It doesn’t much anymore. Every country has some amount of diversity but it also has a strong amount of uniformity.
A
Arkansan
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by exclude. If you mean to exclude a person from one’s love generally, then of course. Though it is often the case that exclusion is necessary wrt particulars, since admitting everyone into certain groups would harm them (e.g. a country, a house).Arkansan:
I’ve not said it does. I’ve said that anyone who uses a rule or order to exclude is using it wrong. Since you took me out of context, I want to make sure we’re at least on the same page.
The obligation of fraternal correction applies to all, though not equally to all. One has more of an obligation to correct the sins of one’s children than others, for example.
I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. That different regions had different subcultures doesn’t mean there was no national culture or identity.
Against the possibility of white people ceasing to exist as a group. Obviously.
G
goodcatholic
Guest
Or an Australian Aborigine as Pope.
How about Native American?
How about Native American?
S
steido01
Guest
Uh-huh. That’s called begging the question. It’s not an answer.
You still have not answered the original question. So, a third time:
Why do you wish to, as you put it, ‘preserve your biological continuation?’
Is it because ‘extinction’ of whites is an actual possibility due to actual, active persecution? Because whites need to fear [insert color]-skinned people taking their jobs/women/power/money? Because whites are so very fundamentally different from [insert color]-skinned people? What makes this arbitrary grouping called ‘whites’ so special?
N
nearlycatholic
Guest
this makes me just want to stay home. I guess the next thing will be “white” skin is a mortal sin. It would be good for any one who is struggling with the pigment of their skin to wrestle it out with God for not knowing what He was doing when He made you red & yellow black or white.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
I honestly don’t understand why a group wanting to continue existing needs justification. It’s universal to all groups of people.
Whites are in danger of ceasing to exist due to mass immigration. If current trends continue white people will become rarer and rare and in a few centuries cease to exist at all. This is straightforward and easy to understand.
Whites are in danger of ceasing to exist due to mass immigration. If current trends continue white people will become rarer and rare and in a few centuries cease to exist at all. This is straightforward and easy to understand.
S
steido01
Guest
Ok, let’s make this really, really easy.
Please define ‘whites.’
Please define ‘whites.’
- Status