Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So you DON’T stand with @FatherMerrin, then?

On the subject of Kavanaugh, absolutely I do. And Kavanaugh is the subject of this thread.

Actually, the subject of this thread was an endorsement of Kavanaugh that was rescinded, to get technical.

But that got lost in all the slander of Kavanaugh, which shows no sign of being rescinded.

 

[PetraG]

My reasons for disliking Kavanaugh are completely unreasonable. My reasons for disliking Trump may be as well. They are not political reasons, and try as I might, I cannot see any good in the man at all. I know that’s irrational, but I still can’t muster any feeling toward him but utter disgust.

My reasons for disliking Trump are totally rational. He makes things up that any 5th grader with internet access could disprove, he made ridiculous promises like Mexico paying for the wall and giving everyone health insurance and things like “trade wars are good, and easy to win,” he brags like those guys who can’t hear that someone else has a rock in their back yard without having to put in that the rock in one of his many back yards is bigger and better–(no, no one said there was a single thing whatsoever that the Queen had done for the 1st time in 70 years when he visited, no one told him Houston was full of lookie loos who needed rescue during Harvey and the list goes on and on!)–he was only able to keep his promise of April 2016 to be more Presidential for maybe 48 hours…I mean, sure, he’s not Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton but so what? He’s still terrible.

I thought Kavanaugh might be OK, but I’m very interested in what his latest background check by the FBI turns up. For a guy who isn’t a problem drinker, he sure talks a lot as if he were a problem drinker. (If someone calls you a mama’s boy, you’d be unwise to mention your mother and everyone else’s mother and the institution of motherhood and so on 20-30 times in your rebuttal.) I also thought he was out of line with the Senate, particularly since he himself has been in a position that is to be treated with respect while the court is in session no matter how out of bounds the judge is. He ought to show more self-control, and I don’t have any problem if certain GOP senators take his deportment as a negative on his confirmation score.

 

[PetraG]

They are probably on YouTube.

And the transcripts.

 

[GLam1761]

The POPE is a Jesuit!! I back their anti-homophobic stance.

 

[PetraG]

America Magazine is a liberal, Jesuit magazine, whose editor is constantly agitating that the Church needs to be more gay friendly.

Deacon Christopher

They initially endorsed Kavanaugh, so I’d say this decision (for once) has zero to do with gays, gay friendliness or anything like that. It is irrelevant.

 

[Diaconia]

The Catholic Church is not homophobic.

Concerning America Magazine – its former Editor-in-Chief, Fr. Thomas Reese, was ordered to resign from his post by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2005.

This actions of the CDF was taken specifically because he continually published articles contrary to the teaching of the Church around homosexuality, contraception, abortion and women’s ordination.

Plenty of Jesuits are obedient and orthodox Catholics, including our Holy Father.

 

[pnewton]

How do you know they are “parroting” as opposed to finding the best words to articulate their own thinking?

I guess I am being optimistic that the majority of people are not so ignorant, specifically, the number of people that talk about “knowing” this or that, or what “facts” are. I expect this sort of wild exaggeration from those who pass as internet journalists. That is how they make money, after all, that is, by inflammation of their readers.

 

[pnewton]

You did use the word “gay-friendly” to describe Jesuits, as though that is a bad thing. It sure sounded homophobic, considering that we, like Jesus, are called to be friends to the those who are homosexuals, as he was to the worst of sinners in his day. Perhaps a more specific term could have been used to describe the former editor, like dissident priest, or unorthodox teaching. I went back and looked at some of his ideas, and those words sure seem appropriate.

However, I would point out that the criticism of the editor who resigned should not apply to the magazine now. While I do not like the idea of them endorsing politicians, if they do, then rescinding the endorsement makes sense if circumstances change, in their opinion.

 

[FatherMerrin]

Correct. I was born Scottish Presbyterian, but I’ve been steadily leaning towards Catholicism for a few years now. I’m not ordained or anything, if you think that’s what my username implies. By “lost soul,” I meant that I’m still trying to figure out if Catholicism really is the answer to many of my personal existential questions and issues, which is why my previous posts have usually been about asking for clarification regarding different aspects of Catholicism that seem uncertain or ill-defined to me.

 

[HarryStotle]

Correct. I was born Scottish Presbyterian, but I’ve been steadily leaning towards Catholicism for a few years now. I’m not ordained or anything, if you think that’s what my username implies.

No I never thought your user name implied you are ordained, as you can tell from my post, but others certainly did.

You have to admit that would be a plausible implication of going by that username.

On the other hand, I find it quite ironic that someone going by @LateCatholic while herself not being Catholic would merely assume that @FatherMerrin means the person using that handle is a priest.

 

[FatherMerrin]

I kind of hoped people would pick up on the fact I was using a fictional character’s name (which is why I also included Max von Sydow as an avatar pic). I guess I should feel slightly complemented that a few folks would mistake me for a real priest.

 

[HarryStotle]

I kind of hoped people would pick up on the fact I was using a fictional character’s name (which is why I also included Max von Sydow as an avatar pic). I guess I should feel slightly complemented that a few folks would mistake me for a real priest.

Well, Max always did have an affable yet dignified, look about him.

 

[Augustinian]

I kind of hoped people would pick up on the fact I was using a fictional character’s name

A lot of people may not have recognized that fact, “The Exorcist” hasn’t received the amount of replays on cable that other hit films of the era like “The Godfather” “Scarface” or “Jaws” has.

 

[Thrstypirate]

Actual photo of @fathermerrin stumbling into CAF for the first time.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[FatherMerrin]

Well, there’s no accounting for taste.

 

[FatherMerrin]

I wouldn’t say I “stumbled,” so much as “meandered.”

 

[LateCatholic]

On the other hand, I find it quite ironic that someone going by @LateCatholic while herself not being Catholic would merely assume that @FatherMerrin means the person using that handle is a priest.

I know a lot of people on this forum get upset when I say I am Catholic. I am fine if you think I’m not. I am baptized, confirmed, and went to Catholic school for a decade. I simply disagree with nearly all the Orthodox Catholic dogma positions. I consider myself a seeker of truth trying to bring Catholicism into the 21st century, rather than abandon it. But if I had my way, my Catholicism would look nothing like it does today. The key to realize, however, is that TODAY’s Catholicism looks NOTHING like it did 500 years ago. You all would be radicals if you were alive then. Who knows - my thinking could be considered ‘orthodox’ in 500 years.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

On the other hand, I find it quite ironic that someone going by @LateCatholic while herself not being Catholic would merely assume that @FatherMerrin means the person using that handle is a priest.

I know a lot of people on this forum get upset when I say I am Catholic. I am fine if you think I’m not. I am baptized, confirmed, and went to Catholic school for a decade. I simply disagree with nearly all the Orthodox Catholic dogma positions. I consider myself a seeker of truth trying to bring Catholicism into the 21st century, rather than abandon it. But if I had my way, my Catholicism would look nothing like it does today. The key to realize, however, is that TODAY’s Catholicism looks NOTHING like it did 500 years ago. You all would be radicals if you were alive then. Who knows - my thinking could be considered ‘orthodox’ in 500 years.

You have just laid down the basic ideological presumptions behind the modernist heresy: There is no abiding truth, except the spiritual “truth” that is revealed in the hearts and minds of “believers,” and since times and the people involved change, the truth changes. Ergo what is true now will no longer be true 500 years from now.

Yeah, no. Modernism was declared a heresy over a hundred years ago. There is no “my” Catholicism and “your” Catholicism, there is Catholicism as it is, God as he is, and the Logos of God as he is. None of those are by virtue of the imaginings, inventions or intuitions of progressivists.

The truth as it is, is eternal not changing in time. If you don’t think that is true you do not understand what Catholicism essentially is, and Who he is who founded it on rock, and not on the ever shifting sands of time.

 

[ColorMomma]

Infants who are out of the womb are still dependent on the mother’s body (for food, comfort, and safety). Any mother will tell you this. I nursed some tiny humans for four solid years. You can believe that my body was not my own. Human children are some of the most helpless. There is little difference between an infant in or outside of the womb. Part of our humanity is our nourishment and care for our young. They should be valued, treasured and loved. I bonded with my children while I they were in my womb. They are living, thinking, feeling beings. My oldest child was premature and had to be in the NICU. He was one of the older babies in there and some were as small as 22 grams. A person is a person no matter how small.

 

[PetraG]

Ah, now we’re getting to the core of the matter. I disagree with the idea that a foetus at 2 months gestation is the same as a 2 month old child.

There are cultures where a 2 month old child isn’t protected, either. The dividing line is arbitrary.

I would think there are no nominees on the President’s list who don’t believe unborn babies are truly human, whether the law recognizes them or not. (The problem is, however, that the Supreme Court does not write the laws.)

Roe v Wade was based on the slippery concept of viability. As for the idea that abortion ought to be legal because people will find a way to do it that will put the life of a second person in danger, that is a pretty repugnant reason to let the practice go unchallenged. It may be true that merely putting a penalty on it as if it were tax evasion is not the best way to address this tragic problem, but it isn’t morally tenable to simply throw hands in the air and essentially say, “well, people are going to kill their children–whaddaya gonna do?”