Gingrich: Kamala Harris Is an ‘Openly Anti-Catholic Bigot’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YADA said:
Harris would force the Little Sister’s of the Poor and every Catholic institution to promote abortion and other actions that are against the teachings of the Church … that is a fact.
Click to expand...
If we get eight years of Dem control, truly Catholic organizations will no longer be in the business of doing charitable works. That’s something authoritarian governments do. They push religious organizations out of such works because they want government dependency to take their place. Dependency and force are the primary tools of authoritarianism, and the Dems will use both.

As Post 19 points out, Harris is certainly no stranger to the latter. Imagine her in charge of the DOJ.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
Then we have an anti-Catholic Constitution in this country.
Click to expand...
Which clause has says “abortion shall be legal”? Indeed, which clause say “rape shall be illegal”? Or what about which clause says “the maximum individual contribution to a candidate is $2,800”?
 
Those are right next to the clauses that say jaywalking must be illegal, no spitting on the sidewalk, cars going in a forward direction shall be on the right side of the road.
 
Nepperhan said:
Its in there; right after the right to privacy. Near the guarantee of a secret ballot
Click to expand...
I don’t see any such text.

But then, you didn’t answer the other examples either, so it seems you are quite selective in what is Constitutional.
 
Last edited:
In other words, the Constitution does not address every single law that may or may not be implemented.
 
sallybutler said:
In other words, the Constitution does not address every single law that may or may not be implemented.
Click to expand...
Wait. Are you arguing that what side of the road we drive on is a Constitutional issue? Perhaps not directly addressed, but somehow connected?
 
This demonstrates the ambiguity in the use of the word “Church.”

When I was going through my conversion to the Catholic Church, I struggled with extra ecclesiam nulla salus. What did this mean? Did this mean that the poor tribal child in remote South America that died could not saved? Or what about that kid here in the US whose parents are devout Baptists who died in a car accident would go to hell? Or even more fundamentally, what happened to all the Jews and gentiles prior to Christ’s time here on earth? Were they all damned too?

It was lots of discussions, thoughts, prayers, and our very own Catholic Answers that answered that for me. There are multiple nuanced meanings to “Church.” It could be the building itself, or the hierarchy, or the body of believers. But the one bigger meaning is that all encompassing conduit from which all of God’s grace is bestowed on the world. Nobody is outside of that meaning.

When I said that heretic might be excluded from the sacraments, it was in that “body of the Church” sense, which you confirm with your quotes. But like when people say things like “So-and-so isn’t Catholic” and others reply “Well, yes he is, he’s been baptized” it’s that larger sense. Baptism (and confirmation) leave indelible marks of Christ and His Church on the person. So, while a heretic may be outside the Church body for the purposes of sacraments, I don’t think he would be outside of the Church as a whole.

(continued in next post)
 
Are you quoting from here: The Heretic Excludes Himself From the Church, “Being Condemned by His Own Judgment” - TFP.org. It appears so given the word-for-word match. And from there you’ll note:
The above does not apply to a purely material heretic who falls into error out of ignorance or inadvertence. Instead, it is the lot of the pertinacious heretic , by which is meant one who adheres to an error contrary to the Faith or persistently doubts a truth of Faith with full knowledge and lucidity.
Click to expand...
But let’s go to canon 751:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;
Click to expand...
Note that it is to be “believed by divine and Catholic faith.” What is meant by “divine and Catholic”? This is often understood to be revealed truths, such as the divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. Does it apply to abortion and gay marriage? There seems to be some disagreement on that point. But yes, I think it likely the case. But even Dr Ed Peters, a preeminent canon lawyer, notes:
(A) Whether the infallible Church teaching on the absolute impossibility of marriage between two persons of the same sex is itself a “revealed truth” (in which case the issue is indeed one of heresy) or whether it is a “proposition … to be held definitely” (in which case the issue is opposition to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but not heresy strictly speaking), with the weight of scholarly opinion, however, favoring the view that Church teaching on the male-female aspect of marriage is divinely revealed, meaning that one’s “obstinate denial or obstinate doubt” concerning that teaching would be heresy;
Click to expand...
(From Fr. James Martin, S.J., and accusations of heresy – Catholic World Report, emphasis mine.)

Beyond that, Dr Peters has an article on nearly identical conditions regarding whether Gov Cuomo should be excommunicated for heresy: Edward Peters: On Excommunicating Andrew Cuomo for Heresy – Brown Pelican Society of Lousiana

He concludes (emphasis mine):
In my view, the only reason not to excommunicate Cuomo is that no canon law seems to authorize an excommunication against him on the facts as they stand today.
Click to expand...
 
No, I am saying that the Constitution does not specifically address each an every law in each and every jurisdiction. Unless you want to count the 10th amendment as covering those.
 
sallybutler said:
No, I am saying that the Constitution does not specifically address each an every law in each and every jurisdiction. Unless you want to count the 10th amendment as covering those.
Click to expand...
Right. So which part of the Constitution covers which side of the road we drive on? Because if that cannot be challenged as a constitutional issue, then why is abortion?
 
Anything can be challenged as a constitutional issue if you have enough money. Go for it
 
That’s actually not true at all. The number of people who owned slaves was tiny.
 
Nepperhan said:
40.png
1cthlctrth:
Abortion is against Catholic Doctrine. Hence the term “anti-Catholic”.
Click to expand...
Then we have an anti-Catholic Constitution in this country.

Your statement is illogical.
Click to expand...
Please quote for all of us the specific text in the Constitution where abortion is declared legal. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top