Plea to Catholics of a Liberal Persuasion

[The_Rock]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, I posted the definition per the catechism. If you are using violence as a tool to punish or frighten it’s torture.

You managed to get it right this time. Now look carefully at what you wrote and see the distinction to which I was pointing. Jesus did not use violence “as a tool to punish or frighten it’s torture” he used violence (or the threat of violence, the gospel is ambiguous) in order to clear the money changers from the temple. The money changers were able to relieve their fear merely by leaving the temple.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Looks to me like a certain someone has been flipping around words. Let’s see a grammatical breakdown of the following catechisemal statement:

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity."

“Torture” is the subject. What kind of torture? Torture “which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.” Alright, so we know what kind of torture the sentence is focused on. Now, what about this kind of torture? It “is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

Nowhere in this statement do I see anything like “all physical violence under all circumstances is torture.”

Subject, predicate. Learn them.

 

[iloveangels]

Michael Sean Winters is a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter, which liberal Catholics will recognize as a very liberal Catholic newspaper. He personally always comes down on the left of every issue.

Yet, he has written in opposition to the mandate here:
ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/jaccuse

He says in the editorial piece above, that Obama has lost his respect … and his vote in November.

He’s also written this about the same topic, also appearing in the National Catholic Reporter.
ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/compromise-not-so-fast

 

[georgetowngrad]

You managed to get it right this time. Now look carefully at what you wrote and see the distinction to which I was pointing. Jesus did not use violence “as a tool to punish or frighten it’s torture” he used violence (or the threat of violence, the gospel is ambiguous) in order to clear the money changers from the temple. The money changers were able to relieve their fear merely by leaving the temple.

It still a distinction of no significance - the end result was achieved by violence and fear. Most people would consider whipping torture. Most people achieve relief from torture when they comply with their torturer. It’s used as a end to a means.

 

[georgetowngrad]

Looks to me like a certain someone has been flipping around words. Let’s see a grammatical breakdown of the following catechisemal statement:

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity."

“Torture” is the subject. What kind of torture? Torture “which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.” Alright, so we know what kind of torture the sentence is focused on. Now, what about this kind of torture? It “is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

Nowhere in this statement do I see anything like “all physical violence under all circumstances is torture.”

Subject, predicate. Learn them.

And in your mind, whipping people isn’t torture - ok

 

[Tigg]

Let’s think about this a little more. One might ask oneself what, exactly, this administration has done for the truly poor; the neediest? The answer is, nothing. In fact, it has harmed the poorest of the poor.

How has it done that?

Well, completely aside from the fact that a lot of the able-bodied poor would like to have a job and the additional fact that this administration deters job creation, there are several things.
-“Cash for clunkers”. An upper-middle class welfare program that destroyed the “clunkers”, which were, to qualify, operational. Poor people are the buyers of “clunkers”, and the "clunker destruction program’ reduced the supply.
-Medicaid expansion. it’s hard enough now to get physicians and hospitals to accept Medicaid patients. By expanding it to include greatly more people, those who are utterly dependent on Medicaid and have no way to get anything else no matter what they do, are being crowded out.
-Emphasis on “well care” and manipulation of reimbursement rates to favor routine well care exams over “chronic care” patients. Chronic patients are overrepresented among the very poor, and particularly among the disabled. It is getting harder and harder to get disabled people treated.
-Obama’s determination to cause utility rates to “skyrocket” as he said. The truly poor are the ones who have the greatest difficulty paying for heat, lights, AC, refrigeration. Yet, obama is determined to make those costs “skyrocket”.
-Possibly my biggest peeve. The most destitute of all are those whose sole source of income is SSI. You have to be totally without assets to get that. Despite the overwhelming Democrat majority and a Democrat in the White House, did they raise it? No, they did not, other than the COLA that applies to all similar benefits and happens automatically. It’s $698/month, maximum. Try living on that.

I guess I have to admit that i think the government has a definite role, even obligation, to aid those who cannot help themselves. But it is precisely those people for whom this administration has done absolutely nothing.

One should never believe the Democrat myth that the party cares about “the poor”. It hasn’t done so for decades. The party of today is like a dissolute heir busily squandering the family fortune on sexual misadventures, while leaving his children destitute.

I agree and my post was only to point out that there is no Christian virtue when one is forced to do so via the state altho to hear the claims of the Dems they are the only ones who care for the needy. I think it goes without saying that Republicans by far are the most giving to the poor through charities and the motivation for doing so comes from a personal Christian commitment. It also maintains the dignity of the human person and protects individual initiative. It’s odd that when the Democrats say they are helping the poor, what we really see is increased centralized power and an overreaching government.

 

[Julia_Mae]

the topic was a plea to liberal catholics to examine why they support the liberal agenda when it purposely intends to undermine catholic morals.

I see. Well, the “liberal agenda” seems to be the product of fertile imaginations and changes with the people doing the imagining. I’m not sure who the “liberal Catholics” are supposed to be.

When I was young you were a “liberal” if you supported the work of the ACLU which fought against abuses of the Constitution. I was never sure why the Constitution was seen as a “liberal” document since it is, after all, the US. I’m wondering what the ACLU has had to say about the religious freedom issues involved in these insurance regulations. Perhaps EWTN should try and get them to provide lawyers.

 

[Julia_Mae]

And I’m pretty sure God said, thou shall not kill. So it does trouble me when I see Catholics dismiss this and vote for strong believers in abortion. .

Does it trouble you to see Catholics vote for those who went to war against a country that hadn’t attacked us and makes the murder of innocents acceptable with the phrase “collateral damage?”

 

[Tigg]

And I’m pretty sure God said, thou shall not kill. So it does trouble me when I see Catholics dismiss this and vote for strong believers in abortion. Let alone Obama’s full support of gay marraige. And Obama is not helping the poor, needy, and most vulnerable. **In fact he’s supporting the murder of the most vulnerable. **

It is also unconstitutional to force a religious charity to choose between their moral conciense and helping the poor and needy.

But…but, Obama’s most ardent supporters (the ones who ignore true Church teaching) can dismiss this because they’ve made up their own truth. Do you know I actually found a web page that states that since the word “abortion” isn’t in the Bible, it’s okay to kill beginning life within the womb! Honestly…it’s there in black and white so since it’s on the internet, it must be true!

 

[jay29]

But…but, Obama’s most ardent supporters (the ones who ignore true Church teaching) can dismiss this because they’ve made up their own truth. Do you know I actually found a web page that states that since the word “abortion” isn’t in the Bible, it’s okay to kill beginning life within the womb! Honestly…it’s there in black and white so since it’s on the internet, it must be true!

I love it when they say, “Jesus didn’t say anything about that” and they use that excuse as a doorway to do what they falsely believe is correct.

I guess unless Jesus specifically addressed an issue, then anything goes. Like abortion and homosexual acts for example. “Jesus never said anything about abortion” Whatever.

 

[Tigg]

Does it trouble you to see Catholics vote for those who went to war against a country that hadn’t attacked us and makes the murder of innocents acceptable with the phrase “collateral damage?”

It troubles me greatly and is one reason I’ve split with the Republican party; it is not a truly conservative position, but there is no moral equivalency to this and the deliberate intent to terminate life as it grows in the womb.

 

[georgetowngrad]

It troubles me greatly and is one reason I’ve split with the Republican party; it is not a truly conservative position, but there is no moral equivalency to this and the deliberate intent to terminate life as it grows in the womb.

For my own edification - how does killing people not equal killing people?

 

[ivebeenshown]

And in your mind, whipping people isn’t torture - ok

I didn’t say anything about whipping. I was responding to this statement of yours:

“Yes, I posted the definition per the catechism. If you are using violence as a tool to punish or frighten it’s torture.”

You apparently have a problem with reading things into text that just aren’t there, as demonstrated by both of the citations of you in this very post. The catechism does not say that if you use violence as punishment then that violence is necessarily torture, it simply says that torture involving physical violence is wrong.

 

[pismopal]

For those who claim that one party treats ‘desperate immigrants like animals:’

Does this mean you support:

Flouting this country’s immigration laws (the most just and lenient in the world)?

Making a mockery of every immigrant who came here the legal way?

Denying those ‘starving masses’ the opportunity to receive the correct medical checks they would get if they came here legally?

Therefore allowing disease to run rampant among them?

The illegal industry that herds people across the border like cattle, with many of them dying in the process?

Allowing criminals and gang members to sneak in?

Encouraging the black market sales of phony IDs?

Overburdening our already-broken medical and immigration system?

The fallacy that need trumps law?

I want to understand what you are calling for.

Forcing the price of labor down and harming American citizens whose welfare should be of concern.

 

[mary_bobo]

Does it trouble you to see Catholics vote for those who went to war against a country that hadn’t attacked us and makes the murder of innocents acceptable with the phrase “collateral damage?”

War is an awful thing and indeed innocent people are killed. But going to war, while to be condemned in many cases, is not one of the five non-negotiables that have been given us.

 

[georgetowngrad]

I didn’t say anything about whipping. I was responding to this statement of yours:

“Yes, I posted the definition per the catechism. If you are using violence as a tool to punish or frighten it’s torture.”

You apparently have a problem with reading things into text that just aren’t there. The catechism does not say that if you use violence as punishment it then that violence is necessarily torture, it simply says that torture involving physical violence is wrong.

I am saying whipping people and the threat of physical violence is torture. That’s why I sited the catechism. That is also why I quoted the gospel of Luke 6:27-3.

[BIBLEDRB] Luke 6:27-31[/BIBLEDRB]

If a person comes and rants and raves at you at your place of work, you would be dismissive of them and have them removed or remove them yourself. The money changers were in their legal rights to be there. This is how they made their living. They weren’t violating Jewish or Roman law.

What drove the money changers out. Jesus smacking with a whip, turning over their tables and screaming at them. He tortured them into leaving. They didn’t fold to the superiority of His logic and message.

If I asked if Jesus was tortured when scourged, you most likely say yes.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It still a distinction of no significance - the end result was achieved by violence and fear. Most people would consider whipping torture. Most people achieve relief from torture when they comply with their torturer. It’s used as a end to a means.

If you choose to ignore the meaning of words and language, that is your choice.

Most people do not consider whipping to be torture.

Most people understand the difference between punishment and torture.

And most Catholic know that you can’t do good by doing evil and that Jesus never did, nor did he ever advocate, the doing of evil to do good.

 

[georgetowngrad]

If you choose to ignore the meaning of words and language, that is your choice.

Most people do not consider whipping to be torture.

Most people understand the difference between punishment and torture.

And most Catholic know that you can’t do good by doing evil and that Jesus never did, nor did he ever advocate, the doing of evil to do good.

Was the scourging of Jesus torture?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Does it trouble you to see Catholics vote for those who went to war against a country that hadn’t attacked us and makes the murder of innocents acceptable with the phrase “collateral damage?”

Not trying to start some new argument here, but the above is not a “given”. People have different opinions about it. In the first gulf war, Saddam conquered Kuwait. No question about that. He was openly paying assassins to kill Israelis, who are our allies. He shot at American and British planes. He tried to assassinate a former president. He had terrorist camps in Iraq where terrorists trained to carry out operations all over the world.

So, saying “…a country that hadn’t attacked us…”, as if that is the sine qua non for military action, is debateable. It’s also debateable whether it is somehow an “unjust war” if one stops aggression against others. Again, not trying to start that one up again, but it’s just not a “given”.

Also, “murder” requires a direct intent to kill the person killed. It could also be debated whether there was any intent in either Iraq or Afghanistan to kill noncombatants.

The killing in abortion, of course, is always directly intended.