Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Really didn’t expect to get into trouble around here for mainly posting my
opinion about only one candidate even though I state my position in support of
not only that candidate but Santorum as well on here.

Perhaps, I talked about him too much and will restrain from doing so in the future but
alas I am very opinionated and it will definitely be a struggle. I think most here
understand my position in support of one particular candidate but will most
likely support the last one standing in the end.

😛
 
The Pope is saying that there may be a “diversity of opinion among Catholics” regarding the waging of JUST wars. Unjust wars are mortally sinful. There can be NO “diversity of opinion” regarding the waging of unjust wars. The reason that there CAN**** be a diversity of opinion regarding the waging of JUST wars is that just because a war is just, does not mean that we have to support it. But unjust wars can NEVER be supported. The Iraq War was clearly an unjust war and Ron Paul has demonstrated it. It is ironic that it takes a Protestant like Ron Paul to tell the truth to Catholics who should know better.
I listed his quote verbatim. He didn’t say just ,which is somewhat irelevant as the achur Church has not declared a war unjust in more than 600 years Again you can spin it anyway you want but when he made this statement the wars in Afghanistan and Iran were in-full swing yet he specifically said a Catholic could disagree with the Vatican about the decision to wage war
 
From the Catechism:

***2309 **The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.*
 
The “bridge to nowhere” is a misnomer. It would connect the Ketchikan Airport to the town of Ketchikan. That would be a big deal.

If you have watched any of the recent television programs on Alaska, you would know that living conditions are rugged and that the Feds own about 69.1% of the state, which makes life doubly hard for the people of Alaska.

sutherlandinstitute.org/blog/2011/05/11/finding-balance-utah-the-feds-nature-and-natural-resources/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

Small excerpt … a complex issue … providing better access to the airport.

In October 2006, when asked, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?”, she answered: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now – while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”[20]

Later that month, at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Wasilla, Alaska, Democratic candidate Tony Knowles criticized Palin for supporting the Knik Arm Bridge, the Gravina Island Bridge, and a road north out of Juneau instead of rebuilding the Parks Highway.

The Ketchikan Daily News noted that, of the gubernatorial candidates, “Only Palin is consistent in support all of the projects”.[21][22][23][24][25]

During her inaugural address on December 4, 2006, Governor Palin pledged responsible spending.[26] On January 17, 2007, she sent a revised budget to the president of the Alaska Senate that would restrict capital spending and rescinded the $185M state share of the bridge funding.[27]

In August 2007, Alaska’s Department of Transportation stated that it was “leaning” toward alternative ferry options, citing bridge costs and the reluctance of Governor Palin to pay the state’s match to the appropriated federal funds.[28] A month later, in September 2007, Palin formally canceled the project.[29][30][31] Palin stated:

Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.[32][33]

Asked why she initially supported the bridge, Palin’s communications director Bill McAllister said, “It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn’t necessarily dead … there’s still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design”. She changed her mind, he said, when “she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving”.[34]

The city of Ketchikan has already begun to develop roads and a small amount of infrastructure for Gravina Island’s 50 inhabitants. However, residents continue to seek funding for the Ketchikan-Gravina span.[35]
[edit]
 
Incredibly, Utah’s plight pales in comparison with two other states. The feds own 84.5 percent of Nevada and 69.1 percent of Alaska. Utah is third on the list, and then comes a bevy of other Western states. Here are the top 10:

Nevada: 84.5%
Alaska: 69.1%
Utah: 57.4%
Oregon: 53.1%
Idaho: 50.2%
Arizona: 48.1%
California: 45.3%
Wyoming: 42.3%
New Mexico: 41.8%
Colorado: 36.6%

go here and scroll down for a graphic map display:

sutherlandinstitute.org/blog/2011/05/11/finding-balance-utah-the-feds-nature-and-natural-resources/

After looking at the map, maybe you all could find justification for President Santorum establishing a commission to turn that land back over to the states.
 
👍 I agree that its not fair to say, as some posters do, “Jesus wants us to have socialized medicine”. Its not a simple matter of “free healthcare for all” as liberals falsely claim.

Ishii
Actually what I said was I doubt Jesus would want the care the sick receive to depend on what state they lived in. And that is what I believe.
 
Actually what I said was I doubt Jesus would want the care the sick receive to depend on what state they lived in. And that is what I believe.
We didn’t have states when Jesus drove his pickup truck.
 
I listed his quote verbatim. He didn’t say just ,which is somewhat irelevant as the achur Church has not declared a war unjust in more than 600 years Again you can spin it anyway you want but when he made this statement the wars in Afghanistan and Iran were in-full swing yet he specifically said a Catholic could disagree with the Vatican about the decision to wage war
I already covered this with you, estesbob. The only one “spinning” is you. There are only two types of wars: just and unjust. Unjust wars are mortally sinful. For a war to be considered “Just” it must meet certain specific criteria spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One must be absolutely certain that these criteria are met. There is no grey area. Once a potential war is deemed “Just” then there may be a “diversity of opinion” as to whether or not it may be waged. Just because a war is deemed “Just” does not mean that it MUST be waged.
 
I already covered this with you, estesbob. The only one “spinning” is you. There are only two types of wars: just and unjust. Unjust wars are mortally sinful. For a war to be considered “Just” it must meet certain specific criteria spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One must be absolutely certain that these criteria are met. There is no grey area. Once a potential war is deemed “Just” then there may be a “diversity of opinion” as to whether or not it may be waged. Just because a war is deemed “Just” does not mean that it MUST be waged.
In your opinion. But fortunately Catholics are not bound by your opinion. I gave a direct quote from the Pope. A catholic could , in good conscience, support both it he war in Iraq and the War in Iran
 
In your opinion. But fortunately Catholics are not bound by your opinion. I gave a direct quote from the Pope. A catholic could , in good conscience, support both it he war in Iraq and the War in Iran
I will repost the exact quote from Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick made public in the first week of July 2004. The relevant text:

“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Ratzinger says that there may be a “diversity of opinion about waging war.” There are only two types of wars, as far as Catholics are concerned: Just Wars and Unjust Wars. There can never be a diversity of opinion about the waging of Unjust Wars. There can also be no diversity of opinion regarding the criteria that must be met for the waging of Just Wars - those critieria are clearly spelled out in the Catechism. But ONCE a war meets those criteria, THEN there may be a diversity of opinion about whether that war MUST be waged.

The rest of this memorandum never once mentions “Iraq” or “Afganistan.” You injected your own politics into Ratzinger’s memorandum in order to justify supporting the war in Iraq and now the coming war with Iran it seems. What a shame!
 
I will repost the exact quote from Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick made public in the first week of July 2004. The relevant text:

“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Ratzinger says that there may be a “diversity of opinion about waging war.” There are only two types of wars, as far as Catholics are concerned: Just Wars and Unjust Wars. There can never be a diversity of opinion about the waging of Unjust Wars. There can also be no diversity of opinion regarding the criteria that must be met for the waging of Just Wars - those critieria are clearly spelled out in the Catechism. But ONCE a war meets those criteria, THEN there may be a diversity of opinion about whether that war MUST be waged.

The rest of this memorandum never once mentions “Iraq” or “Afganistan.” You injected your own politics into Ratzinger’s memorandum in order to justify supporting the war in Iraq and now the coming war with Iran it seems. What a shame!
The quote stands on its own. We don’t need you to tell us what he “really” meant.
 
The quote stands on its own. We don’t need you to tell us what he “really” meant.
The quote stands on its own. It stands next to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We don’t need your politics injected into it.
 
I already covered this with you, estesbob. The only one “spinning” is you. There are only two types of wars: just and unjust. Unjust wars are mortally sinful. For a war to be considered “Just” it must meet certain specific criteria spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One must be absolutely certain that these criteria are met. There is no grey area. Once a potential war is deemed “Just” then there may be a “diversity of opinion” as to whether or not it may be waged. Just because a war is deemed “Just” does not mean that it MUST be waged.
Estesbob has never spinned in any of his many posts here. He/she is one of the most intelligent, objective persons on CAF.

You aren’t permitted to say that unjust wars are mortally sinful because only God can determine mortal sin. There are 3 conditions for a sin to be mortal. The thought, word or deed must be wrong (could be said here). The sinner must know this (Only God knows this). The sinner must give full consent (could be said here).
 
The quote stands on its own. It stands next to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We don’t need your politics injected into it.
So only Ron Paul politics can be applied on a Rick Santorum thread?
 
Estesbob has never spinned in any of his many posts here. He/she is one of the most intelligent, objective persons on CAF.

You aren’t permitted to say that unjust wars are mortally sinful because only God can determine mortal sin. There are 3 conditions for a sin to be mortal. The thought, word or deed must be wrong (could be said here). The sinner must know this (Only God knows this). The sinner must give full consent (could be said here).
I am a he and thank you for your kind words
 
The quote stands on its own. It stands next to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I’m glad you brought up the Catechism. There is an oft overlooked sentence in the excerpt on Just War. I put in in bold for your edification:
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
What the pope obviously understands is that the prudential judgement of political leaders and communities are responsible for the evaluation. He and the bishops certainly provide guidance, but they don’t determine whether the conditions are morally legitimate.

We don’t need your politics injected into it.
 
Pope Benedict:

“While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment,” he said. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” he added.

lifesitenews.com/news/pope-benedict-xvi-on-what-should-be-the-principal-focus-for-catholic-voters/
Hm. I wonder what “aggression” by Iraq did the United States take up arms to “repel”?.. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top