Sanders Thread

[anon67074017]

That is not the biggest concern for me. It is the direction the church is going.

The approval of the world can be and is often anti-Christ.

It certainly seems that Pope Francis is embracing this liberation theology, which is socialism or even worse.

With the endless quotes and the enemy that communism has been to Christ and stifling of the Holy Spirit through out the Years is well documented.

The cliches of using heart strIngs to convince us the socialism is the answer for the poor are lies. As stated by the church all throughout history.

Now, all of a sudden this obvious direction…

I still find it strange that there are still two Popes. First time in how long?

This is my biggest concern.

Pope Benedict XVI is no longer the Pope. He resigned all his authority. There have not been two living Popes at the same time since 1417 though. I do not think that Pope Francis is a socialist.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Pope Benedict XVI is no longer the Pope. He resigned all his authority. There have not been two living Popes at the same time since 1417 though. I do not think that Pope Francis is a socialist.

Yeah, that is what I meant. I thought for some reason, even if he is retired that he is still revered as Holy Father. Like a retired priest, is still a priest.

Pope Francis has embraced the liberation theology. He sure seems to be embracing the world socialista. Much of which he has shared beliefs.

Yes, when I said there have not been two living Popes since 1417, is pretty strange to me. Unusual to say the least.

 

[Darryl1958]

Pope John Paul II was against the Iraq War.

And?

Does that preclude the need for a Catholic to think for himself? Are we to be papal automatons?

 

[CatholicKnight3]

And?

Does that preclude the need for a Catholic to think for himself? Are we to be papal automatons?

They say it was an unjust war in iraq. I find it interesting how saddam was this innocent man. Same ones that say it was unjust mind you are the same ones who claim they are on the side of the poor and down trodden. The same ones mind you that get all bent out of shape when America waterboarded 5 terrorists. All involved in 911.

Now, all of a sudden. It seems that many forget or don’t believe saddam tortured many people. Well documented. Many think Booooosh lied about WMDs and yet clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Booooosh took office.

The UN along with many other nations said the same thing and after America was attacked on 911, the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats from nations that sponsored terrorism. No longer could we afford to be just reactive. Considering what we saw 19 men do without a gun.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And?

Does that preclude the need for a Catholic to think for himself? Are we to be papal automatons?

In what way was he wrong?

 

[sallybutler]

They say it was an unjust war in iraq. I find it interesting how saddam was this innocent man. Same ones that say it was unjust mind you are the same ones who claim they are on the side of the poor and down trodden. The same ones mind you that get all bent out of shape when America waterboarded 5 terrorists. All involved in 911.

Now, all of a sudden. It seems that many forget or don’t believe saddam tortured many people. Well documented. Many think Booooosh lied about WMDs and yet clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Booooosh took office.

The UN along with many other nations said the same thing and after America was attacked on 911, the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats from nations that sponsored terrorism. No longer could we afford to be just reactive. Considering what we saw 19 men do without a gun.

The ends do not justify the means. That is a teaching of the Church.

Saddam may have tortured many people, but he had nothing to do with 9/11. If anyone did it was Osama Bin Laden or the Saudis. That is what made it an unjust war. We were not attacked by Saddam.

 

[Crossbones]

And?

Does that preclude the need for a Catholic to think for himself? Are we to be papal automatons?

Pope John Paul II -

“No to war”

“War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations”

From the same article (catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm)

Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:
"proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained."

 

[CatholicKnight3]

The ends do not justify the means. That is a teaching of the Church.

Saddam may have tortured many people, but he had nothing to do with 9/11. If anyone did it was Osama Bin Laden or the Saudis. That is what made it an unjust war. We were not attacked by Saddam.

The fact they had nothing to do with 911 is not the point. They were a nation that sponsored terrorism and every intelligence community including the UN said he had violated at least 17 resolutions.

The League of. Nations became irrelevant due to appeasement when Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles. As a result, the UN was formed.

Iraq displayed certain threats to the western world. As a I said, after 911 the nation’s policy changed from being reactive to being proactive.

The nation was not “invaded” it was liberated. Saddams evil is very well documented. His two son in laws both verified he was pursuing wmds and since only a few ounces of weaponized biological agents could cause mass devastation the US decided to act. With the approvalof the UN.

I know, it is so bad that the nation was liberated from their oppressor. We can maintain and believe it was all just totally unjust. Fine. You keep on believing that. It is certainly the popular sentiment.

I guess to many we should only act after a tyrant becomes as big as Hitler became. Only then the World should act.

Me? I am going to maintain that liberating them was a good thing. What has happened since, has been a disaster of epic proportions.

Like I said, I find it odd how people who claim to care so n uch for 5 terrorists being waterboarded who planned 911 wish saddam was still in power murdering his citizens.

The double standards are amazing.

 

[Dwyer]

Mr. Sanders lost in New York.

nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-trump-look-add-delegate-leads-new-york-primary-n557801

 

[Tomdstone]

Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,”

So it was not a just war, and American Catholics should not have supported it?

 

[JPUSC]

That is not the biggest concern for me. It is the direction the church is going.

The approval of the world can be and is often anti-Christ.

It certainly seems that Pope Francis is embracing this liberation theology, which is socialism or even worse.

With the endless quotes and the enemy that communism has been to Christ and stifling of the Holy Spirit through out the Years is well documented.

The cliches of using heart strIngs to convince us the socialism is the answer for the poor are lies. As stated by the church all throughout history.

Now, all of a sudden this obvious direction…

I still find it strange that there are still two Popes. First time in how long?

This is my biggest concern.

AMEN.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Mr. Sanders lost in New York.

nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-trump-look-add-delegate-leads-new-york-primary-n557801

Well, he got some delegates, but not nearly as many as Hillary. She won as big as Trump. Both mostly 60/40. Trump a little more. He can now reach 1,237, though it’s going to be tough. All Hillary has to do is secure 32% of the remaining votes, and she will secure 32% of the remaining votes.

 

[estesbob]

Again, I believe that Catholics can interpret the words of Bishop Kicanas and understand his meaning. Let’s review what he says again:

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

Where does he say it is licit for a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion candidate when acpro-life alternative is available? In fact where does anyone with teaching authority in the Catholic Church say this?

 

[estesbob]

Again, I believe that Catholics can interpret the words of Bishop Kicanas and understand his meaning. Let’s review what he says again:

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

So how should a Catholic interpret this ?

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”

Cardinal Burke

 

[estesbob]

Trust me, those businesses that have to pay sales tax hate their local Franchise Tax Board or Department of Revenue as much as they hate the IRS. Often more, because (at least in my experience), the state organizations are more intrusive and harder to get around than the IRS.

Agreed. I would much rather have a client audited by the IRS than them have a the sales tax audit

 

[estesbob]

The ends do not justify the means. That is a teaching of the Church.

Saddam may have tortured many people, but he had nothing to do with 9/11. If anyone did it was Osama Bin Laden or the Saudis. That is what made it an unjust war. We were not attacked by Saddam.

Why would the Pope say it was acceptable for Catholic to support the Iraq war if it were unjust? And what relevance does this have to the 2016 election ?

 

[estesbob]

Well, he got some delegates, but not nearly as many as Hillary. She won as big as Trump. Both mostly 60/40. Trump a little more. He can now reach 1,237, though it’s going to be tough. All Hillary has to do is secure 32% of the remaining votes, and she will secure 32% of the remaining votes.

Is that 32% with or without the delegates provided by the Democrat Party House of Lords?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why would the Pope say it was acceptable for Catholic to support the Iraq war if it were unjust? And what relevance does this have to the 2016 election ?

This is an excerpt from Archbishop John J. Myers:

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on “just war,” he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-09-17myers.htm

 

[Crossbones]

Why would the Pope say it was acceptable for Catholic to support the Iraq war if it were unjust? And what relevance does this have to the 2016 election ?

Let’s look at what Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger said right before the Iraq War.

“No to war” - Pope John Paul II

“War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” - Pope John Paul II

Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:

“proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained.”

 

[_Abyssinia]

Let’s look at what Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger said right before the Iraq War.

“No to war” - Pope John Paul II

“War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” - Pope John Paul II

Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:

“proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained.”

This is an excerpt from Archbishop John J. Myers

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on “just war,” he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-09-17myers.htm