Haha. I love it. Of course I realize that the GOP is a fallible human institution capable of error. But that does not change the fact that the principles of reaganite conservatism are amazingly similar to the moral teachings of the Church.It isn’t a requirement…just a logical result.
Can you relax a little?? I was teasing…joking. I’ve said many times that Catholics can differ on their approaches towards some of Church teaching - especially on the economic side. As long as your approach is in-line with Church teaching, there is nothing wrong with it. Sheesh!
I agree. More importantly, I think action by more Catholics would help the party become even better.
Absolutely. The Republican party is definitely a “big tent” party. Its the principles of conservatism that I think are most in line with Catholicism. And yes, I agree with you on the immigration issue.
)I have said this many times – to my fellow Catholics who regard themselves as Democrats, purge your party! To my fellow Catholics who regard themselves as Republicans, purge your party!abortion. hands down. the most depraved evil act. it is the greatest injustice in our society. it’s the injustice from which all others flow. if we can’t respect even basic innocent life, how do we respect labor rights? how do we respect civil liberties? how do we respect anyone?
edit: i’m not a republican! i’m a good person i swear!
(btw that was just a joke
How do you purge such a system? Wot’s the plan, Stan?
What does whether or not he is your brother have to do with right and wrong? Homosexuality is intrinsically evil, much like murder, pornography, and bestiality. People who struggle with Same Sex Attraction, but seek to endure the struggle and live a chaste life are a different story; they are to be commended.I see your references to homosexuality and I agree to a certain point. However, I feel like a hypocrite as I have a brother, whom I love very much, who is homosexual. He is not a blatant homosexual and would never dream of imposing his beliefs on my children. One of my children is old enough (18) to understand that his uncle is homosexual and accepts it. At the same time, he understands that this is not normal. He loves his uncle, though.
I have two smaller children who ask once in awhile why their uncle is not married, and I just explain that he has a very demanding job. They seem to accept that, but I know that one day they will know. I don’t think it’s right to impose this sort of information on a child until they are old enough to understand this. I am torn between the love I have for my brother and my personal beliefs about homosexuality in the church. He used to be very religious when he was younger and has stopped worshiping God because he feels rejected for his feelings. He tells me he resisted this for many, many years and even went to a psychiatrist. He says that he would never CHOOSE to be a homosexual; he just is. He says it is horrible to have to be overt about your sexual preferences for what people might think in a personal and professional arena. I see how this has affected my parents as well. They love their son but are torn… Would God really reject His own children?
You complained about generous assumptions, and then you label a large group of people as the dregs?
Dude, you post a lot of stuff when asked simple questions, I am willing to bet 90% of the people reading this don’t have a clue what you are trying to say.OK, now what, we’re waiting…
That doesn’t satisfy Justice. If we are witnessing the completion of true Justice when a man gets condemned, then that is true Justice being played out to the end, all case factors remaining equal. Man has an interest in what the next guy’s just reward is. What your saying is my point about the Church’s stand-offish attitude toward society, in that the recognition of the evil is as far as it will take it in the Justice process, but it holds powers beyond it, “…what you retain will be retained.”.
Put into perspective, an anology would be that after a trial you are condemned for murder. On death row your daughter gets murdered by a pact of people who swore allegiance to each other to act out and become responsible for the next person’s actions. Here authorities will tell you that because there are 500 people, the scale doesn’t make it justifiable for all of them to get a death sentence. Reason will tell you that the contract
binds them to collective Justice, not individual.
Studying the anology, you object “Decrease my sentence”, but there are no ears to listen. You conclude that there is something wrong, that there is no such criteria for exemption, that all there is to be judged is to be an entity who can act and understands what is good and what is evil, and is bound by God’s laws, and you now discover the precepts of the law are being tweaked to suit the predicament and you would be correct. You say to yourself, “Surely a Devine Justice would have no such limiting factor, that it would look at the facts pertaining to culpability, that if it saw no bounds to smiting nations, thus recognizing it as collective bound to a singular culpability, what stops the Church today from excommunicating a nation, or withholding absolution from it.”
It is not man’s fault that he is a singular carbon unit. In Judicial context that becomes a technicality. He cannot disperse his culpability to constituent parts of his own body as can nation. Prior to any justice system being implemented, it would be glaringly obvious to predict that nation would come out favored if the dispersal was an accepted factor in it’s punishment.
As a result in regards to Justice, man is defaulted by the nation’s favored position.
Initially conscience, but now additionally since Pentecost the Holy Spirit. The Church(Christ) then is necessary for accurate discernment.
No argument here. You know it, I know it, we all know it. All we need now is the appropriate response from the Church that we are familiar with that suits the case of a stubborn entity that defies the will of God, says so boastfully, that has the advantage of thousands of consciences, that can debate the wrong and right of in collective discernment, has the Word at it’s disposal, etc…
So what would the Church do if this were a high profile individual?; it would summarily dispatch him to excommunicate land pronto.
AndyF
Now that I agree with.
Been there. Tried to do that. I was there when prolifers were purged from the party. At present the Dem party is impervious to any attempt to promote a prolife cause within it. The only thing that can possibly open that stone wall is losing elections; time after time after time. Then, and only then will the Dem party even remotely consider opening up to the prolife cause.
Two ways, both of which involve working inside a party.
there’s no hope for the current two parties. they’re so entrenched in their ideas (meaning basically the ideas of people with all the money who fund them) that it’s a lost cause. catholic anarchism looks more appealing to me every day. now that’s practical.
And that’s what we’ll have to do.
Yes. Abortion is a Catholic sin. We could put a stop to it, if we wanted to.
