Plea to Catholics of a Liberal Persuasion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cursilista
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
georgetowngrad said:
Per the catechism it is against moral law.
Click to expand...
Nope, but just out of curiosity, which do you believe was Jesus’ objective in whipping the money changers:
  1. punish the guilty,
  2. frighten opponents, or
  3. satisfy hatred.
(Note that driving them out of the temple is not on that list.)
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Nope, but just out of curiosity, which do you believe was Jesus’ objective in whipping the money changers:
  1. punish the guilty,
  2. frighten opponents, or
  3. satisfy hatred.
(Note that driving them out of the temple is not on that list.)
Click to expand...
He drove them out of the temple so at the least he frightened them. You seem to feel he was justified because they were guilty.
 
catholicwomenofgrace.net/tv-shows/10251-Marginalization-Persecution-Martyrdom.html
In 1980, Blessed John Paul the Second, in an informal statement to a group of Catholics, said, “We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ.” He continued, “Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it, because it is the only way the Church can be effectively renewed.” The Holy Father concluded, “How many times, indeed has the renewal of the Church been effected in blood? This time, again, it will not be otherwise.”
Click to expand...
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This doesn’t even make sense. Who is saying that liberals are not worthy of charity?!

You are dodging the question.

When did Jesus ever do evil to do good or demand that evil be done to do good?
Click to expand...
Liberals are not always shown charity and my only point was I didn’t know when they are that it warranted special applause. And I’m not dodging a thing. But we’re probably not going to agree on priorities and evil. So nevermind. God bless you on your walk of faith and peace be with you always.
 
georgetowngrad said:
He drove them out of the temple so at the least he frightened them. You seem to feel he was justified because they were guilty.
Click to expand...
He frightened them but he did not attack them in order to frighten them. He attacked them in order to drive them out of the temple.

Jesus doesn’t need *me *to justify him. But I do understand the moral distinction between attacking the innocent and attacking the guilty.
 
CMatt25 said:
Liberals are not always shown charity and my only point was I didn’t know when they are that it warranted special applause. And I’m not dodging a thing. But we’re probably not going to agree on priorities and evil. So nevernind. God bless you on your walk of faith and peace be with you always.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct, I will not agree with you and georgetowngrad either that one can do good by doing evil or that anyone has a more duty to do evil in order to do good.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
He frightened them but he did not attack them in order to frighten them. He attacked them in order to drive them out of the temple.

Jesus doesn’t need *me *to justify him. But I do understand the moral distinction between attacking the innocent and attacking the guilty.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your distinction. What drove the money changers out other than fear and pain.
 
Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, “Notable & Quotable,” “Wall Street Journal” (Nov. 9, 1978)
Click to expand...
“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical
confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that
wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the
Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the
confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of
the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.”[26]
ewtn.com/library/scriptur/flfire.txt
Click to expand...
 
georgetowngrad said:
John 2:15 And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.
Click to expand...
Just curious where you see in this verse you quoted that He actually whipped the people with the cords? 🤷
 
nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm
Pope Paul VI made four rather general “prophecies” about what would happen if the Church’s teaching on contraception were ignored.
Click to expand...
Infidelity and moral decline…
Click to expand...
Lost Respect for Women…
Click to expand...
Abuse of Power
Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a “dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” The history of the family-planning programs in the Third World is a sobering testimony to this reality. In Third World countries many people undergo sterilization unaware of what they are doing. The forced abortion program in China shows the stark extreme toward which governments will take population programs. Moreover, few people are willing to recognize the growing evidence that many parts of the world face not overpopulation, but underpopulation. It will take years to reverse the “anti-child” mentality now entrenched in many societies.
Click to expand...
Unlimited Dominion
Pope Paul’s final warning was that contraception would lead man to think that he had unlimited dominion over his own body. Sterilization is now the most widely used form of contraception in the U.S.; individuals are so convinced of their rights to control their own bodies that they do not hesitate to alter even their own physical make-up.
Click to expand...
The desire for unlimited dominion over one’s own body extends beyond contraception. The production of “test-tube babies” is another indication of the refusal to accept the body’s limitations; so too are euthanasia and the use of organs transplanted from those who are “nearly” dead. We seek to adjust the body to our desires and timetables, rather than adjusting ourselves to its needs.
Click to expand...
 
georgetowngrad said:
I don’t understand your distinction. What drove the money changers out other than fear and pain.
Click to expand...
To understand the distinction you have to understand the purpose of an action is usually different than the action and often different from the effect of an action.

The Catholic Church teaches that torture is immoral and it defines torture by the three purposes. It does not mean that anytime you frighten someone you are torturing them.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
To understand the distinction you have to understand the purpose of an action is usually different than the action and often different from the effect of an action.

The Catholic Church teaches that torture is immoral and it defines torture by the three purposes. It does not mean that anytime you frighten someone you are torturing them.
Click to expand...
If you are hitting them with a whip and acting violently you are. 🤷
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Nope, torture is not mere violence, whether with a whip or any other means. Torture is very specifically defined.
Click to expand...
Yes, I posted the definition per the catechism. If you are using violence as a tool to punish or frighten it’s torture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top