Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[rlg94086]

Can you give an example of me using the term ‘as I do’? I never called anyone a neoconvervative, I just pointed out, as others have, that it is a self imposed label. Neo conservatives proudly proclaim themselves as such.

Sure…look at your next paragraph. You basically accuse everyone who is a “GOP supporter” of being a neoconservative, by saying they have “ownership” of the term.

SoCalRC:

Since a GOP congress and GOP whitehouse have vigorously pursued a neo conservative policy (PNAC has been proposing the invasion of Iraq for the purposes of strategic self interest since 1997), and the GOP leadership has put self proclaimed neo-cons into many positions of great power, GOP supporters have an ownership stake in neo conservatism. If you find the policy offensive, vote differently. If it is just the term that bothers you, take it up with the folks who coined it and continue to use it.

It bothers me when it is misapplied to all Republicans. Being a Republican does not mean I support every action 100%.

SoCalRC:

I’m sure that would crack them up on talk radio, but I actually take this quite seriously. Hate speech dehumanizes the target. It is, fundementally, a rejection of the Second Vatican Councils definition of the human person. In other words, it is a rejection of the underpinnings of my faith’s position on abortion.

I’ve seen men die for God and country, sometimes while I still frantically tried to shovel their insides back into them. The divisions we dwell on, things like skin color, socio-economic status, or even political affiliations, are largely superficial.

Your twisting and turning to try to demonstrate your moral superiority is really tiring. I joked about calling liberals Communists, since it is apparently acceptable for liberals to call Republicans “neo-cons.” You have since gone overboard in your righteous indignation.

 

[SoCalRC]

Probably not, but in my naivete I can’t help but jump in from time to time.

Mary, you’ve lectured me on Christian charity, seemingly oblivous to the hyprocisy that our conversation started with your indignation surrounding the ‘denigration’ of a self imposed label, a moral distinction between human beings.

It is the USCCB that identified an American Protectorate as a serious trouble spot for modern slavery and forced abortions. And it was the US justice system that strung together convictions and testimony establishing extensive connections to the leadership of the GOP.

Similiarly, it is the Catholic Church, not I, that warns against the perils of voting a narrow subset of Catholic Doctrine. And, of course, it is our Lord, not I, that warns of the perils of moral relativism.

I believe, as the Church does, in religious freedom as an inalienable right of the human person. So if someone wishes to say, worship an earthly political party, such is their right. However, when professing to be a ‘superior Catholic’ , one would do well to not belittle Apostolic Authority, since it is a distinguishing feature of our faith, and a belief that we proclaim at least weekly to hold.

As for Jr. High style back biting, well, you can presumably read the Psalms for yourself. I pretty much outgrew it the first time I shoveled what was left of a fellow child of God back into his poncho. In my experience the sorts of self imposed labels and distinctions you seem to hold dear, like being a “true conservative” vs. a self described “neo-con”, are bunk. When legs are blown off and life is leaking away humans always turn to the same things.

This is why our Catholic weekly call for unity and peace inspite of our universal sinfulness has long reasonated with me. There seems little point in trying to create little clubs and smugly assert our moral superiority over others. There are only two labels that matter, and the Son of Man will apply them at the proper time (Matt25).

 

[vern_humphrey]

The real torture is reading the tortured logic in his posts. I am also suprised he believed I supported the death penatly given you forced me to get a job as a guard on death row becuase of it…

Yeah – how’s the job going? Meeting any interesting people?

 

[SoCalRC]

Your twisting and turning to try to demonstrate your moral superiority is really tiring. I joked about calling liberals Communists, since it is apparently acceptable for liberals to call Republicans “neo-cons.” You have since gone overboard in your righteous indignation.

As Mary pointed out, trying to look into my heart and mind is un-Christian.

You made a “joke” of denigrating other human beings. Liberals call Republican’s neo-cons because the people Republicans put in charge call themselves neo-cons.

I cannot change demonstrable fact. Liberals did not coin the term “neo-con”, nor did they put neo-cons in power or pursue neo-conservative policies, Republicans did.

I’ve simply pointed out that there is a difference between referring to a group based on a label it defines for itself, vs. assigning a derogatory label to it.

In case you missed it, my entire point for this thread is that the fight over labels is inherently un-Christian and anti-Catholic. We are all sinners, we all make moral compromises. Trying to set human boundaries and declare moral superiority on the basis of moral relativism is something that Christ specifically warned us against doing.

Conservatives are offended that neo-con somehow errodes or denigrades their club? You are either a ‘true conservative’ or not? Welcome to reality, politics is a collection of convenience for earthly power. One collection empowers neo-cons. If this threatens someone’s moral self image, they should follow Christ’s advice and forsake the pursuit of earthly status and power and concentrate on what is really important.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Similiarly, it is the Catholic Church, not I, that warns against the perils of voting a narrow subset of Catholic Doctrine.

Cite, please?

From Catholics in the Public Square, Most Reverent Thomas J. OImstead, Bishop of Phoenix (Basilica Press, Irving, TX, 2006)

17) Are all political and social issues equal when it comes to choosing a political candidate?

Absolutely not! The Catholic Church is actiely engaged in a wide variety of important public policy issues including immigration, education, affordable housing, health and welfare, to name just a few. On each of these issues we do our best to be informed and to support those proposed solutions that seem most likely to be effective. ** However, when it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter**.

(My emphasis)

I believe, as the Church does, in religious freedom as an inalienable right of the human person. So if someone wishes to say, worship an earthly political party, such is their right. However, when professing to be a ‘superior Catholic’ , one would do well to not belittle Apostolic Authority, since it is a distinguishing feature of our faith, and a belief that we proclaim at least weekly to hold.

Which is why I posted Bishop Olmstead’s comments above.

 

[estesbob]

Yeah – how’s the job going? Meeting any interesting people?

Yes-I love their visitors-I always give them your address

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes-I love their visitors-I always give them your address

Ah. That would explain all the guests I’ve had recently – I thought they were poachers shooting deer out of season.

 

[mary_bobo]

As Mary pointed out, trying to look into my heart and mind is un-Christian.

You made a “joke” of denigrating other human beings. Liberals call Republican’s neo-cons because the people Republicans put in charge call themselves neo-cons.

Please list these people with references.

I cannot change demonstrable fact. Liberals did not coin the term “neo-con”, nor did they put neo-cons in power or pursue neo-conservative policies, Republicans did.

What are neo-con policies (in 100 words or less)

I’ve simply pointed out that there is a difference between referring to a group based on a label it defines for itself, vs. assigning a derogatory label to it.

In case you missed it, my entire point for this thread is that the fight over labels is inherently un-Christian and anti-Catholic. We are all sinners, we all make moral compromises. Trying to set human boundaries and declare moral superiority on the basis of moral relativism is something that Christ specifically warned us against doing.

Conservatives are offended that neo-con somehow errodes or denigrades their club? You are either a ‘true conservative’ or not? Welcome to reality, politics is a collection of convenience for earthly power. One collection empowers neo-cons. If this threatens someone’s moral self image, they should follow Christ’s advice and forsake the pursuit of earthly status and power and concentrate on what is really important.

Once again, what in the world are you saying?

 

[estesbob]

Ah. That would explain all the guests I’ve had recently – I thought they were poachers shooting deer out of season.

I didnt tell them that your friends Smith and Wesson live with you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I didnt tell them that your friends Smith and Wesson live with you.

Actually, the only Smith and Wesson I ever owned came out of the survival pack of a shot-down C-130.

Now, Colts are a different matter.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, the only Smith and Wesson I ever owned came out of the survival pack of a shot-down C-130.

Now, Colts are a different matter.

Did you shoot it down?

 

[iamrefreshed]

As Mary pointed out, trying to look into my heart and mind is un-Christian.

You made a “joke” of denigrating other human beings. Liberals call Republican’s neo-cons because the people Republicans put in charge call themselves neo-cons.

I cannot change demonstrable fact. Liberals did not coin the term “neo-con”, nor did they put neo-cons in power or pursue neo-conservative policies, Republicans did.

I’ve simply pointed out that there is a difference between referring to a group based on a label it defines for itself, vs. assigning a derogatory label to it.

In case you missed it, my entire point for this thread is that the fight over labels is inherently un-Christian and anti-Catholic. We are all sinners, we all make moral compromises. Trying to set human boundaries and declare moral superiority on the basis of moral relativism is something that Christ specifically warned us against doing.

Conservatives are offended that neo-con somehow errodes or denigrades their club? You are either a ‘true conservative’ or not? Welcome to reality, politics is a collection of convenience for earthly power. One collection empowers neo-cons. If this threatens someone’s moral self image, they should follow Christ’s advice and forsake the pursuit of earthly status and power and concentrate on what is really important.

rlg hit the nail on the head. You want to continue label others yet wish to invoke un-christian like attitude when others do the same to you.

That’s very hypocritical.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Did you shoot it down?

That’ll teach 'em to fly around while I’m trying to take a nap.

No, it was hit by anti-aircraft fire (12.5mm machinegun) about four or five klicks south of the DMZ in northern I Corps. We were looking for survivors – none found, unfortunately.

 

[SoCalRC]

Cite, please?

From Catholics in the Public Square, Most Reverent Thomas J. OImstead, Bishop of Phoenix (Basilica Press, Irving, TX, 2006)

From the CONGREGATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, in a DOCTRINAL NOTE with regards to THE PARTICIPATION OF CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE. And, in the context of “limiting the harm”:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.”

The document then goes on to list 9 specific examples of “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”. Abortion is one.

This is not incompatible with the quote you included. Being ‘right’ on the other eight does not permit you to be wrong on abortion. But, notice that the quote does not say that you can be wrong on any of the other eight simply because you are ‘right’ on abortion.

Bishop Olmstead clearly understands this and seems to quote the same document:

“[A] well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”

The distortion is asserting that our faith can be condensed, that is, that the above should be singular, not plural.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The distortion is asserting that our faith can be condensed, that is, that the above should be singular, not plural.

A “distortion?” Why don’t you call him up and explain his mistake to him?

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on the behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination.

Christifideles Laici, 38

You know who wrote that, don’t you?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t know either, nor do I know why some people are offended by the term.

Gee, I sure don’t know what the problem is…a quick google can give you all the definition you want in about 30 sec.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gee, I sure don’t know what the problem is…a quick google can give you all the definition you want in about 30 sec.

But not what people on this forum mean when they apply it to people who don’t in any shape or form fit the definition.

Imagine that common phrase "son of a " The person who uses that phrase doesn’t mean the person he directs it toward really has a cocker spaniel for a mother – he means it as an insult.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then in your mind all Catholics fighting in Iraq are going to hell? How do you reconcile that with the Vatican’s latest pronouncement that we should stay in Iraq until it is stabilized?

I don’t know why you continually raise this strawman. A soldier once he signs on the dotted line as a volunteer may not refuse his orders unless they are patently immoral to the level that would invoke the Nuremberg rule. Such rule has also been adopted by the Vatican. You of course will have to produce the claim that we should stay, and why at this point. That does not necessarily have anythnig to do with whether we should ever have gone there in the first place. I’ve presented a rather long list that makes it clear where both JPII and Benedict stood on the war and what coservatives within the Catholic faith believe the Church stands as well. You have produced nothing.

The reason I cling to the war is okay stance is because the Pope specifically said that Catholics in good conscious can either support or oppose this war. If you can find a similar statement about abortion please post it.

Again, you produce nothing to prove that. This is not about abortion. You are talking about the war. My query to you would be as a “faithful” Catholic why would you take a position allowed but clearly very much disfavored by the Church?

By the way I oppose the death penalty as adamantly as I oppose abortion. Perhaps you and I can swap stories about our experiences we have had protesting outside the walls of the prison when an execution is going on. The crowds have gotten quite a bit bigger since Texas moved the execution time to 5 p.m. rather than midnight. Being I spend a lot of time in Colorado I’ dont make it as much as I used to

I’m pleasantly surprised.

I also oppose torture, and unjust wars, but in reality I dont know of anybody who supports unjust wars or torture, , Although I know there are many define torture as anything beyond raising your voice to a prisoner and that many define an unjust war as any war waged by a Republican president.

There are some threads here on this. You would be surprised then, because there are some who support the DP on ONLY retribution grounds. As to those who take a radical position on what constitutes prohibited behavior…mmmm don’t really know, havent seen anyone voice that as an argument.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

From the CONGREGATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, in a DOCTRINAL NOTE with regards to THE PARTICIPATION OF CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE. And, in the context of “limiting the harm”:

The document then goes on to list 9 specific examples of “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”. Abortion is one.

This is not incompatible with the quote you included. Being ‘right’ on the other eight does not permit you to be wrong on abortion. But, notice that the quote does not say that you can be wrong on any of the other eight simply because you are ‘right’ on abortion.

Bishop Olmstead clearly understands this and seems to quote the same document:

The distortion is asserting that our faith can be condensed, that is, that the above should be singular, not plural.

Thanks, you’ve really been very helpful in explaining fully the doctrine of the Church. Those who seek to understand the truth will undoubtedly find a good explanation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thanks, you’ve really been very helpful in explaining fully the doctrine of the Church. Those who seek to understand the truth will undoubtedly find a good explanation.

What do you understand all this to mean? That we can support pro-abortion politicians if they’re “okay” on other issues?