W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
I have not bought a newspaper in years. I can get everything on-line (including coupons).
- Status
B
bones_IV
Guest
I don’t even read the main stream newspapers. Cause they aren’t worth didily squat.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
True. I prefer Fox and other more conservative sources. They are more reliable than the MSM (especially the past 7 years with their irrational hatred of Bush).
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Did you catch the part about the Pope learning how we in the US get along well with Muslims? Um, helloo? This Pope has been all about peace with Muslims!
As for denying communion to pro abort politicians, I think it’s a hell-or-highwater situation. If this were a case of accepted genocide, would we worry about upsetting some people by strong opposition? Welll, this is a case of widely accepted infanticide, which seems, to me, almost worse. Speak loudly, consequences be damned.
As for denying communion to pro abort politicians, I think it’s a hell-or-highwater situation. If this were a case of accepted genocide, would we worry about upsetting some people by strong opposition? Welll, this is a case of widely accepted infanticide, which seems, to me, almost worse. Speak loudly, consequences be damned.
B
bones_IV
Guest
C
Caesar
Guest
Obviously the author of this tripe takes the erroneous view of the separation of Church and State where it is unnecessary- even inherently wrong- for politicians and the common voting citizen to make political decisions based on their faith. From this perspective, religion is a private matter (unless your religion constitutes a minority group, in which case you may be as vocal as you like and if anyone disagrees just slap them with a hate-crime charge), which you leave in church so it does not influence your life beyond that one-hour on Sundays. Rather, votes should be cast and decisions made on a purely intellectual level- which is to say, if you don’t jump on a bandwagon driven by left-wing academics with a bloated sense of self-importance, your an outdated Neanderthal who shouldn’t be allowed to vote. God may have created this world and everything in it, but the greatest responsibility of the human race is to keep Him out of it!
If the Church in the United States has thrived because it has been relegated to private function behind closed doors, it has not thrived at all. Only when society reflects the teachings of the Church and the will of God does the Church thrive in that society.
There was a politician in my former city of residence, London Ontario, named Pat O’Brien. He was the Member of Parliament for my riding during the time when the Canadian government allowed gay marriage, and a member of the governing Liberal Party of Canada, which held a majority in Parliament. He was also an active member of my parish. Alone of all the other Liberal Party members, Pat O’Brien refused to vote in favor of the bill that abolished the description of a legal marriage as between a man and a woman. His reason for doing so? Mr. O’Brien- in a country where the open discussion of religion is political suicide- publicly announced that he was a practicing Catholic who could not, in good conscience, vote in favor of such a bill that would bring harm to his soul and the souls of others. If the Church said gay marriage was wrong, it was unquestionably wrong, and helping to allow it would have been a grave sin. His offices in London and Ottawa were picketed; his own party turned on him; there was even talk of bringing him, along with various orthodox clergymen, up on charges of committing a hate-crime. On June 28th 2005 the Civil Marriage Act was passed in the House of Commons. Pat O’Brien resigned from the Liberal Party and held his seat as an independent until the 2006 election.
The two consecutive Prime Ministers who were instrumental in bringing about the legalization of gay marriage, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, claimed to be devout Catholics and active in the Church. Both, upon media scrutiny of their faith, professed personal objection to gay marriage but refused to allow their faith to influence their political decisions. To this day, neither of these former Prime Ministers nor any other “Catholic” politician who assisted in legalizing gay marriage has been officially informed of the automatic excommunication they have incurred for this deed.
No man can serve two masters. Either you accept the burden of service to God and His Church, or you act in what is ultimately the service of the Evil One. The burden God places on our shoulders when we enter into His service is not a light one, and it must be carried into all aspects of our life. We cannot for even a second set down this burden without neglecting our service and acting in accordance to the wishes of the Evil One. We must bear our Catholic faith, as Christ bore His Cross, wherever we go. We are Catholic in church, at home, in the classrooms and lecture hall. We are Catholic in the workplace, in the office, the laboratory, the shop, the garage, and the farm. We are Catholic in all our decisions. We are Catholic even in the voting booth and the legislature. Unless we are always and everywhere Catholic, we are separated from the Church and from God.
If the Church in the United States has thrived because it has been relegated to private function behind closed doors, it has not thrived at all. Only when society reflects the teachings of the Church and the will of God does the Church thrive in that society.
There was a politician in my former city of residence, London Ontario, named Pat O’Brien. He was the Member of Parliament for my riding during the time when the Canadian government allowed gay marriage, and a member of the governing Liberal Party of Canada, which held a majority in Parliament. He was also an active member of my parish. Alone of all the other Liberal Party members, Pat O’Brien refused to vote in favor of the bill that abolished the description of a legal marriage as between a man and a woman. His reason for doing so? Mr. O’Brien- in a country where the open discussion of religion is political suicide- publicly announced that he was a practicing Catholic who could not, in good conscience, vote in favor of such a bill that would bring harm to his soul and the souls of others. If the Church said gay marriage was wrong, it was unquestionably wrong, and helping to allow it would have been a grave sin. His offices in London and Ottawa were picketed; his own party turned on him; there was even talk of bringing him, along with various orthodox clergymen, up on charges of committing a hate-crime. On June 28th 2005 the Civil Marriage Act was passed in the House of Commons. Pat O’Brien resigned from the Liberal Party and held his seat as an independent until the 2006 election.
The two consecutive Prime Ministers who were instrumental in bringing about the legalization of gay marriage, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, claimed to be devout Catholics and active in the Church. Both, upon media scrutiny of their faith, professed personal objection to gay marriage but refused to allow their faith to influence their political decisions. To this day, neither of these former Prime Ministers nor any other “Catholic” politician who assisted in legalizing gay marriage has been officially informed of the automatic excommunication they have incurred for this deed.
No man can serve two masters. Either you accept the burden of service to God and His Church, or you act in what is ultimately the service of the Evil One. The burden God places on our shoulders when we enter into His service is not a light one, and it must be carried into all aspects of our life. We cannot for even a second set down this burden without neglecting our service and acting in accordance to the wishes of the Evil One. We must bear our Catholic faith, as Christ bore His Cross, wherever we go. We are Catholic in church, at home, in the classrooms and lecture hall. We are Catholic in the workplace, in the office, the laboratory, the shop, the garage, and the farm. We are Catholic in all our decisions. We are Catholic even in the voting booth and the legislature. Unless we are always and everywhere Catholic, we are separated from the Church and from God.
C
Caesar
Guest
The message of many great Saints- the message of all Saints, whether in their writings or their very lives- is that the Catholic faith permeates the entirety of our being. This is the message of Pope of Benedict XVI, and this is the message of Christ. The very reason why the Saints are Saints is because always and everywhere they strove to follow the Catholic faith. The message is clear and simple- be Catholic. In all ways, be Catholic.
We are tempted in this age of secularism and modernity to only recall the outward expressions of our faith- the Rites and Sacraments of the Church. But these things are merely the anchors that fuse the spiritual world with the temporal, that allow us to receive the divine grace necessary to express the faith.
Ok, I went on a little tangent. But my point is- we cannot profess our truly Catholic faith without carrying it with us always and wherever we go. If we lay down the burden of faith we cease to be Catholic. The separation of Church and State means that the institutions of Church and State are to be separated, not that faith has no place in the governing of society. Our service to God and the Church does not end when Sunday Mass does; no does it end when we enter the voting booth. We have an obligation to vote and make decisions that will preserve our souls and the souls of others, lest we neglect our service to God and enter into the service of Evil.
Countless martyrs have sacrificed their lives to maintain this service to God and the Church. In a democratic society God often calls us to sacrifice temporal dignity, career and public image in His service.
We are tempted in this age of secularism and modernity to only recall the outward expressions of our faith- the Rites and Sacraments of the Church. But these things are merely the anchors that fuse the spiritual world with the temporal, that allow us to receive the divine grace necessary to express the faith.
Ok, I went on a little tangent. But my point is- we cannot profess our truly Catholic faith without carrying it with us always and wherever we go. If we lay down the burden of faith we cease to be Catholic. The separation of Church and State means that the institutions of Church and State are to be separated, not that faith has no place in the governing of society. Our service to God and the Church does not end when Sunday Mass does; no does it end when we enter the voting booth. We have an obligation to vote and make decisions that will preserve our souls and the souls of others, lest we neglect our service to God and enter into the service of Evil.
Countless martyrs have sacrificed their lives to maintain this service to God and the Church. In a democratic society God often calls us to sacrifice temporal dignity, career and public image in His service.
M
mlchance
Guest
Not true. The “root cause of much American anti-Catholicism in years past” was Protestantism. The Church had been an advocate of the separation of Church and state for hundreds of years before there ever was a United States of America.
– Mark L. Chance.
B
bones_IV
Guest
One of the reasons why so many Catholics in predominantly Catholic countries like Austria ect…, have a love-hate relationship with the Church, is due to fascism in Europe during the early 20th century. In Austria they made it a law to go to Church on Sundays. Probably one of the reasons why so many never set foot in a Church again. Not to mention the the socialist conditions that existed over there and why so many Christians embraced it. Shameful. Democracy is the way to go. Union of Church and State has already been tried and it was never a happy one.
C
Caesar
Guest
I have to disagree with there. If anything, such cases as the one I posted above demonstrate a crucial flaw in the democratic system. A democratic society can never be Catholic. The system creates an environment where political leaders forsake their faith in favor of their career and where decisions are made based on a majority vote. In democracy there is no concept of right and wrong that supercedes a majority vote.
The Church never really accepted democracy for a long period of time. And for good reason. The original proponents of democracy (especially the American brand of it) were the Freemasons and the liberal intellectuals of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Furthermore the argument can be made that if a society can change laws with a simple majority vote they might also get a desire to do so with the doctrines of the Church.
The Church never really accepted democracy for a long period of time. And for good reason. The original proponents of democracy (especially the American brand of it) were the Freemasons and the liberal intellectuals of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Furthermore the argument can be made that if a society can change laws with a simple majority vote they might also get a desire to do so with the doctrines of the Church.
B
bones_IV
Guest
I never said democracy was perfect. I think people fail to understand how corrupt the Church was at the beginning of the 20th century. Tell me, how did so many nobles get elected bishops and cardinals? SHAMEFUL! Just look at Fascist Austria if you don’t believe me. Goes to show what happens when the Church and the State are in bed together. Sounds good on paper, but doesn’t work in reality.
Do I think abortion should be outlawed? Sure. Do I think the U.S. should banned same-sex unions? Yes. Democracy has not been played out yet. It’s true face is still hidden. I do not think this system works in countries without a shared vision of the commom good and without a grounding in Christianity. Democracy in Nations without a Christian heritage is destined for failure.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
I have to agree with Chesterton that democracy has failed the people. Monarchy, anyone? I mean, sure, a king can abuse power–and people often use the argument that kings are sometimes tyrants. But so are parliaments and presidents. Besides, a king would be much harder to buy.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Well said. Any failure of democracy has nothing to do with the system itself. When enough people have a Christian view, then the nation will have a Christian nature…abortion will be illegal, gay marriage still won’t be legal, people will charitably help the poor, etc. With a monarchy or dictatorship, you may or may not have those things. It depends on the leader, and since an individual leader doesn’t live forever, things can change dramatically when the new one replaces him/her.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Maybe a Theocracy (Catholic of course
)
B
bones_IV
Guest
Code:
Austria still has a church tax, in order to avoid it, you have to resign from the catholic church at a govt building. I find it interesting how people on the catholic left, and people on the right fringe, like some sspx or sedevact. are united in their disdain for the USA and embrace of absurd, if not totalitarian, ideas. The totalitarian impulse can be encountered rather frequently on the respective fringes, they just differ in the details - say, while left and right fringe will slam the American system, the left will advocate open borders and the right wants to close them.
B
bones_IV
Guest
It’s already been tried DID NOT work. I could say this and be called “a liberal”. Just look at what happened with ancient Israel. They reaped what they sowed. Just look at what happened with France before the French Revolution! Not to mention the democracy that came out of France was Totalitarian!Maybe a Theocracy (Catholic of course
Just look at the terrible abuses that were carried out with the violent anti-semitic persecutions that occurred in Imperial Russia before the 1917 revolution! Or in France with Dreyfus! The Russian Revolution just shows you what happens as a consequence of the State controlling the Church for so many centuries after they had split with Rome in 1054! Europe in the early 20th century reaped what it sowed for so many centuries in the 2nd millennium alone.
C
Caesar
Guest
A constitutional Catholic monarchy could be able to keep both the monarch in check and the parliament in line with the Church. Of course I do suggest that the monarch be more then a mere figurehead like the Queen of England.
B
bones_IV
Guest
How do you explain then why Monarchies kept interfering in roman conclaves and selecting the pope they thought would satisfy their agenda? Shameful.
R
rlg94086
Guest
If you could guarantee a benevolent, Catholic monarch, a Catholic monarchy would be great. However, you can’t guarantee that. The nature of man is such, that you can almost guarantee a corrupt, Catholic monarch. If not with the first one, then somewhere down the line…and more than once.
B
bones_IV
Guest
I hate monarchies myself. Never liked them. They are too political. But there were a few good ones. Monarchies might have worked a long time ago, but it doesn’t work anymore.
- Status