So you don’t think Jerry Sandusky should even be taken to Court and tried for crimes?I do not believe Catholics voted for President Obama because of his position on abortion or other serious moral issues. Not all in our community are one issue voters realizing neither political platform is perfect and also neither are the candidates.
We are quite free to voice our opinion in America .I follow the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church the Magisterium, but I have no right whatsoever to judge and condemn others for their free choice whether it is right or wrong, God convicts and judges.
Peace, Carlan
This is the danger modern social justice Catholics get into. Papal social encyclicals remind us we are both body and soul and we should not minimize one for the other. Social justice teaching embraces the total person, not a half measure. As we know from the recent scandals, CRS just recently gave a huge amount of $$ to an organization that not only provides clean water, but is ardently supporting abortion and contraception as well. The dysentery may take the life of the child, but what does abortion do?I also wonder if part of the issue is that the relative importance of issues depends on where you stand? For instance, if you’re an American with shelter, food, electricity, and a computer connection, you might say that abortion and gay marriage are the most important issues.
But if you’re a mother in a third world country whose child is dying of dysentery, clean water is the most important issue.
Perhaps one thing we can do is to dialogue with Hispanic communities as to what they see as the most important issues they face on a daily basis.
By the way, I object to the “one issue voter” mantra here, Infanticide is not Abortion. How anyone can have a clean conscience and vote for someone who would force infanticide on another human being, the weakest among us, I have no idea, at least no informed Catholic should.I do not believe Catholics voted for President Obama because of his position on abortion or other serious moral issues. Not all in our community are one issue voters realizing neither political platform is perfect and also neither are the candidates.
We are quite free to voice our opinion in America .I follow the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church the Magisterium, but I have no right whatsoever to judge and condemn others for their free choice whether it is right or wrong, God convicts and judges.
Peace, Carlan
This is much what Joseph Biden said:I do not believe Catholics voted for President Obama because of his position on abortion or other serious moral issues. Not all in our community are one issue voters realizing neither political platform is perfect and also neither are the candidates.
We are quite free to voice our opinion in America .I follow the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church the Magisterium, but I have no right whatsoever to judge and condemn others for their free choice whether it is right or wrong, God convicts and judges.
Peace, Carlan
**Vice President Biden, like many Catholic politicians of his generation, succumbed to the pressure of the secularist culture, switching positions on foundational issues and compromising the very teaching of His Church. This is most evident in his retreat from the defense of the Right to Life **and his rejection of the truth about marriage and family.
lifenews.com/2012/10/12/paul-ryan-was-the-true-pro-life-catholic-in-thursdays-debate/Joe Biden promotes the profane notion that there is a “right” to abortion when every abortion violates the natural Law Right to Life. He recently endorsed the oxymoron of “same-sex marriage”, rejecting the clear teaching of His Church as rooted in the Natural Law. While claiming, as he did in tonight’s debate, that he endorses the “social doctrine of the Catholic Church” he directly dissents from it and then tries to use it to his political advantage by claiming he follows “social doctrine”.
And herein lies the rub. We live in a pluralistic society where we do not have the authority to compel the citizenry to follow Catholic doctrine. And yet any time someone acknowledges this fact the word “relativism” is introduced to the dialogue. This isn’t relativism, it’s “real-ativism”.Okay, you are saying the same thing as Joe Biden, the Catholic Bishops corrected this view. You are espousing a made up religion. You are espousing Relativism, you are not espousing the Catholic Faith.
Peace Broomwagon
Now there’s an idea worth repeating. For a person who has no intention of ever having an abortion, issues like the children’s education or access to care for a chronically ill relative, might figure as bigger issues than trying to outlaw people from aborting.I also wonder if part of the issue is that the relative importance of issues depends on where you stand? For instance, if you’re an American with shelter, food, electricity, and a computer connection, you might say that abortion and gay marriage are the most important issues.
But if you’re a mother in a third world country whose child is dying of dysentery, clean water is the most important issue.
Perhaps one thing we can do is to dialogue with Hispanic communities as to what they see as the most important issues they face on a daily basis.
Even in a cent percent Catholic society, neither salvation nor catholic doctrine may be imposed. Certain social evils may have deterrent laws but not all. What to deter and what to decriminalize is a legislators’ domain and clergy’s only role is to supply moral guidance. Clergy may use their own deterrents like denial of sacraments or excommunication within the legal framework of a country’s constitution.And herein lies the rub. We live in a pluralistic society where we do not have the authority to compel the citizenry to follow Catholic doctrine. And yet any time someone acknowledges this fact the word “relativism” is introduced to the dialogue. This isn’t relativism, it’s “real-ativism”.
lifenews.com/2012/10/12/paul-ryan-was-the-true-pro-life-catholic-in-thursdays-debate/Biden gave the predictable answer of the Catholics in public life who have compromised on truth.** He “refuses to impose” his personal religious beliefs on the American people — the classic Drinan-Kennedy-Cuomo-Pelosi dance step.** Biden further denied the violation of religious liberty casued by the HHS mandate and Raddatz cut Ryan off when he asked Biden why so many Catholic institutions were suing the Obama administration over the mandate.
Remember, the Catholics working for Obama now denied Communion in the Church, really shows what your position is!Even in a cent percent Catholic society, neither salvation nor catholic doctrine may be imposed. Certain social evils may have deterrent laws but not all. What to deter and what to decriminalize is a legislators’ domain and clergy’s only role is to supply moral guidance.
But we have a right to vote. The vote is an authority.And herein lies the rub. We live in a pluralistic society where we do not have the authority to compel the citizenry to follow Catholic doctrine. And yet any time someone acknowledges this fact the word “relativism” is introduced to the dialogue. This isn’t relativism, it’s “real-ativism”.
First, you have this one right that truth never changes, even though we sometimes may want it to. Now, as far as the delivery causing alienation, sorry but hardness of heart and ignorance of truth does that. True charity and love is to inform another of error, not ignoring the error. Does the delivery cause a deepening of the h of h? Maybe so, but how would you have a minister preach the truth but not preach the truth to hard, I haven’t learned that method I guess. What I have learned over the years is that watering down the true so feelings don’t get hurt does more damage than good.Truth does not change, what changes is the delivery method of truth and that delivery causes alienation. This does exclude that some have a ‘hardness of heart’, but includes the method of delivery as a possible cause of some of those to have ‘hardness of heart’.
Christ did not teach, there will come a time you must not use love and charity to save my Church. He taught that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and that He would be with it until the consummation of the world.
He also taught of the persecutions, where we would have to take up our cross and follow Him. He taught to turn the other cheek, to love even your enemies and do good to them that persecute you.
I say I oppose both, because that is the truth. Ironically, I continue to have the same defense of Republicans brought up, repeatedly. The two party system has worked against the citizen.
I am only speaking up now because of the despair, doubting other person’s faith, name calling, and other lacks of charity that is required of us all, through Christ’s teachings and the teachings still from the Church.
Exactly; however, please show me where one can state emphatically that another conscience is wrong, or not conforming?
And we are arguably, a Christian Nation.And herein lies the rub. We live in a pluralistic society where we do not have the authority to compel the citizenry to follow Catholic doctrine. And yet any time someone acknowledges this fact the word “relativism” is introduced to the dialogue. This isn’t relativism, it’s “real-ativism”.
This is not a matter that can be discussed with you.Remember, the Catholics working for Obama now denied Communion in the Church, really shows what your position is!
Methinks that murdered babies everywhere would disagree with you.
I would very much like to hear why.Me not think so.
The recommendations for providing counseling to those with chronic conditions come from the MEDICAL COMMUNITY via research and consensus. Those are international recommendations: “stop smoking”, “lose weight”, “eat healthy”…for two main reasons: because doctors have a DUTY to guide people regarding keeping healthy and because the care of chronic conditions is predicted to escalate to the point where, it will become a development issue in many countries: harming the workforce and the economy.There is merit in what you are saying. My wife in an RN who works with disabled people. She is angry because the administration has increased the reimbursement for “well care” while reducing it for “chronic care”. Disabled people are “chronic” patients. One of the additional disturbing aspects are that providers are now required to document advice given to patients; “stop smoking” “lose weight” “start running”, “don’t get pregnant”, whatever the case may be. Also, they are required to document that they recommended that “living wills” be placed in the chart, and that the patient refused to do it if he/she did refuse. Providers are presently rewarded financially for doing those things above a certain percentage of all patients. It’s a very high percentage; 90% or something like that.
In 2016, that will turn into penalties if the providers don’t. Now, when one considers that the government panel will issue directives as to what care to provide and what care not to provide, one can’t help being disturbed that that data will be used to determine care. So, if one has, say, a pre-diabetic condition and is advised to lose weight and is told a number of times to do it but doesn’t, can we really believe that diabetic care will be provided if and when the patient develops diabetes or very costly complications thereof?
And, of course, disabled people are not going to be well able to follow any advice because it is very difficult for them to do it, or they are dependent on others to do it.
The Bishops have made it clear how we should vote, vote is authority, this socieity is ours, Christians and Protestants, Atheists too,** you said “pluralistic”. Remember that.**And herein lies the rub. We live in a pluralistic society where we do not have the authority to compel the citizenry to follow Catholic doctrine. And yet any time someone acknowledges this fact the word “relativism” is introduced to the dialogue. This isn’t relativism, it’s “real-ativism”.
The Church belongs to all of us members, so I’m not sure what your problem with that is. If you don’t like what Catholics do, there are lots of other places to worship…Remember, the Catholics working for Obama now denied Communion in the Church, really shows what your position is!
I’ve got four words for those Catholics who deny very basic tenets and obligations of their faith, such as supporting the right to life:The Church belongs to all of us members, so I’m not sure what your problem with that is. If you don’t like what Catholics do, there are lots of other places to worship…
I don’t think our Church is at all weak or do-nothing. Here’s an article about the Vatican’s response to the push for gay marriage:Zeland, we humans are not all in the same place at the same time when it comes to growth in spirituality, holiness and all that is good. God knows that and so does the Church.,.she knows and understands that we are all sinners and that it takes a lifetime of growth for purification. May God forgive us and continue to be merciful toward us sinners.
Peace, Carlan
Because Obama has NO role whatsoever in the murder of unborn babies. He is as respectable and lovable as Blessed Mother Teresa.I would very much like to hear why.