House chaplain forced out by Ryan

  • Thread starter Thread starter lmachine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
it does say that sinful killing is gravely sinful.

it makes it clear that capital punishment, where it is not absolutely necessary, is sinful killing.

You seem to be looking for a loophole? Why?
Click to expand...
yes. Sinful things are sinful. Some are mortal and some are venial. A wrongful, intentional killing is mortally sinful, or “gravely” so, if you prefer.

But not all killings are wrongful, and the Catechism says so. That’s not a “loophole” it’s what the Catechism says, straight up. What it does NOT say is what you are trying to make it say.

Frankly, I doubt you and I disagree about this at all. The real dispute between me and you is that you want to excuse Democrats’ support of abortion, whereas I don’t; having left the party for that very reason.
 
dvdjs said:
Or, it may be that poor will be with us always. But we have made great strides in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and helping the sick. This is not failure; it is our calling.
Click to expand...
If there hasn’t been a change in the poverty level, then all we achieved was making them dependent
they were able to get themselves clothed and fed without the many trillions we spent.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Frankly, I doubt you and I disagree about this at all. The real dispute between me and you is that you want to excuse Democrats’ support of abortion
Click to expand...
This is the greatest deflection of all deflections.
You really should stick to your own thoughts rather than imagining things about what others are thinking.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Actually, if you look at the court rulings, it is very clear that both social security and medicare are welfare programs and that we have no property rights to a welfare program.
Click to expand...
the original act had welfare in it but it also created an insurance program.
The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement.
Click to expand...
 
You’re right, but some people just keep on keeping on even though it’s morally reprehensible for them to do as such. With them, I’ve pretty much have myself learned over the years not to get down into the gutter with them. Yes, it’s “avoidance” in my part, but maybe if enough refuse to do so, the offenders will eventually get the message that it’s simply not right to put words and/or thoughts on other people because it’s dishonest as a form of “bearing false witness”. It’s highly offensive, and on more than just one level.
 
Metis1 said:
You’re right, but some people just keep on keeping on even though it’s morally reprehensible for them to do as such. With them, I’ve pretty much have myself learned over the years not to get down into the gutter with them. Yes, it’s “avoidance” in my part, but maybe if enough refuse to do so, the offenders will eventually get the message that it’s simply not right to put words and/or thoughts on other people because it’s dishonest as a form of “bearing false witness”. It’s highly offensive, and on more than just one level.
Click to expand...
Interesting how the self-styled “righteous” are so quick to accuse others of things like “false witness” without knowing a thing about them.

Objectively, supporting Democrats is supporting abortion. Everybody knows that who knows anything. It was even in the party platform. So let’s deal with reality not the rationalizations of those who support abortion but don’t want to admit it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Objectively, supporting Democrats is supporting abortion. Everybody knows that who knows anything.
Click to expand...
I think that the many, many Catholics who voted for HRC do not know that. What don’t you ask some of them?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Interesting how the self-styled “righteous” are so quick to accuse others of things like “false witness” without knowing a thing about them.
Click to expand...
To be fair, is someone makes an accusation and refuses to back it up, then it is false witness. There is nothing wrong with calling false witness what it is.
 
dvdjs said:
I think that the many, many Catholics who voted for HRC do not know that. What don’t you ask some of them?
Click to expand...
I do tell them, including on here. Most don’t want to own up to it, but now and then somebody does. Those who are heavily invested in supporting abortion, of course, are the least likely.
 
Last edited:
stinkcat_14 said:
To be fair, is someone makes an accusation and refuses to back it up, then it is false witness
Click to expand...
No it’s not. Where did you get something as silly as that? Making an accusation and refusing to “back it up” is making an accusation and refusing to back it up, nothing more. Participating in an argument does not determine the truth or falsity of anything, let alone the knowledge of one of the participants as to truth or falsity.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No it’s not. … Making an accusation and refusing to “back it up” is making an accusation and refusing to back it up, nothing more.
Click to expand...
I agree. False witness happens when people provide objective witness that is objectively false.
When people make an accusation and refuse to back it up, there are other words that apply, none of them good.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Making an accusation and refusing to “back it up” is making an accusation and refusing to back it up, nothing more.
Click to expand...
So tell me, what is the point of making an accusation and refusing to back it up? Other than perhaps detraction and calumny? For example, you once accused me of insulting Melania. Yet, despite being asked several times you refuse to back up your accusation. What is the benefit of making accusations that one cannot back up?
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...70de7c-4f07-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html
The Rev. Patrick J. Conroy, the House chaplain who announced his resignation under pressure last month, informed Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) Thursday that he wanted to rescind his offer and remain in his position at least through the end of this year.

In a two-page letter, Conroy informed Ryan that he gave in to pressure from the speaker’s staff when he agreed in mid-April to resign, believing that Ryan had the power to fire him, but the chaplain now believes he was pressured into the resignation for lack of cause.

“I have never been disciplined, nor reprimanded, nor have I ever heard a complaint about my ministry during my time as House chaplain,” Conroy wrote Thursday.

In previous statements, Ryan denied that the Jesuit priest’s political views played any role in the ouster and that instead he had heard numerous complaints about Conroy’s lack of interaction with lawmakers.
Click to expand...
It. Is. On. Don’t mess with a Jesuit.

From his letter:
While you never spoke with me in person, nor did you send me any correspondence, on Friday, April 13th, 2018, your Chief of Staff, Jonathan Burks, came to me and informed me that you were asking for my letter of resignation. I inquired as to whether or not it was “for cause,” and Mr. Burks mentioned dismissively something like "maybe it’s time that we had a Chaplain that wasn’t a Catholic. He also mentioned my November prayer and an interview with the National Journal Daily.
Click to expand...
 
dvdjs said:
I agree. False witness happens when people provide objective witness that is objectively false.

When people make an accusation and refuse to back it up, there are other words that apply, none of them good.
Click to expand...
Not interested in joining in your gang attack.

But false witness is not based on the objective truth or falsity of the assertion, but on that and the intent to make a false statement.

I’m sure you and your team member will use every “not good” name on me sooner or later, so why don’t you just vent now and get them out of your system.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
So tell me, what is the point of making an accusation and refusing to back it up? Other than perhaps detraction and calumny? For example, you once accused me of insulting Melania. Yet, despite being asked several times you refuse to back up your accusation. What is the benefit of making accusations that one cannot back up?
Click to expand...
Stop being such a baby. I have backed up things I said when I feel there is reason to do it and some possibility at least some participant will pay attention.

I am not interested in tracking back into your posts any further. Nor in you, for that matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top