I hope I did not understand correctly that statement…then again…lol I just don’t understand it at all !!Because having a black man elected twice as president is a sure sign that America is racist against blacks.
OK Jim…I am beginning to see your point. I think you are beginning to say…what is going on is a process…with the Church in the cross hair of the intended target,which is religious convictions and freedoms.
Indeed. I am not sure that the Nation is beyond the point of saving, but I do see that we are heading into very dangerous territory, where the State will punish those that hold God’s laws higher than man’s laws.
By this reasoning we should have the Protestant Party vs the Catholic Party vs…
Okay but what happened to the hetersexual union involving divorced Catholics or adultery or fornication for that matter? Aren’t these also against Church teachings? Why is a Catholic politician given a free pass for not condemning these actions?
Really? I don’t see it being a change of subject at all. He’s just trying to use logic to understand the Church’s position, which does admittedly cause said position to fall apart.
Because having a black man elected twice as president is a sure sign that America is racist against blacks.
I guess you didn’t notice that just called him black. But for your information, I’m not white. I’m half black and half white (or African and Caucasian American if you prefer). You’ll have to excuse me since I grew up with the term “black”, and this was what was on my school records under the category of race. But I see more blacks who are racist against whites than I see the other way around.
Civil divorce is not against Catholic teaching because in the Church’s view, civil divorce has no effect on the marriage bond if it exists. If a true marriage never existed, civil divorce might be necessary as a prelude to seeking a decree of nullity. The Church follows Jesus’ teaching that a valid marriage cannot be broken by any human being.
Right. The “gay” activists are the only ones trying to force everyone to celebrate their sin.
Wonderful! Very well said.
I must say how very much I agree with your post. I have watched the changes in our society with the advent of Birth Control, Abortion, and all of the above. It has brought much sadness to my soul.I think you make many false assertions to bolster an argument that has no foundation in morality or logic.
I think these are assertions that no believing Christian can possibly maintain and still be Christian, IMHO.
I have lived long enough to see the damage to society of most, if not all of the things you assert are a benefit to society, and you’re wrong about that. These things have damaged and coarsened society. These things have destroyed lives.
No fault divorce has made marriage disposable, and of no consequence. Easy to fall into and out of, and making a wreck of the lives all around it.
Birth control has created a society of sexual intercourse with no consequences (a child), so the result is that the act that should be reserved for marriage is now a sport. The result is STDs out of control, and the degradation of men and women as they copulate in meaningless and transient relationships, if they even have relationships. It has reduced sexual intercourse into mutual pleasuring that for all intents and purpose is a solitary event and not a true union. It has also had the effect that prostitution (male and female) a socially acceptable act.
I’m surprised you omitted pornography as a “freedom of speech” issue. Destructive to society.
Abortion extension of the idea of birth control due to the failure of birth control (life is seemingly irrepressible), except that the sex act has already produced its result; a child. A human being. So now, this is simply the elimination of that child. The devalues life to the basest level - human life is now disposal, consequences of sexual activity that are designed for one real purpose, procreation now turned on its head to be recreation. Once murder of a single human being is not only tolerated, but celebrated in a society, then it’s only a matter of time before mass murders begin. It’s the logical conclusion.
Adultery? Fornication? You call these things good or minimize them? Seriously?
What then of the Ten Commandments?
What then of the things that Jesus Himself told us about how we should act?
What then of the instruction of the Apostles?
What then on the instruction of the Church through the Ages?
My understanding of these issues is simply this, support of evil and things intrinsically evil is in itself and evil act. And to be silent about these issues is to give consent to evil. But that’s just me, I guess. I have a different perspective on it than you apparently do.
I could go further, but I suspect that what I have to say would be falling on deaf ears, so to speak.
It’s very difficult to follow your reaoning here. What on earth does slavery have to do with this? Slavery was permitted on an arbitrary and unprovable assertion of the inferiority of the black man. A bald assertion totally without merit. Distinctions between relationships fundamentally ordered towards parenthood and those that are fundamentally sterile are based on objective facts, not bald assertions. There’s no comparison.
Simple. The church isn’t attempting to force her morality and doctrine on the general public. She is objecting to the redefinition of marriage in ways that is contrary to both morality AND the underlying reasons that the state has traditionally been involved with marriage in the first place!
But why should the state promote the falsity that a valid marriage is indissovable? For the good of society the state must promote the true, natural definition of marriage, which would include the the indissolvability of valid marriages. Your, or perhaps the Church’s, reasoning sounds more like a cop out in this case.
A single cardinal gave a prayer of blessing, not a speech, at both the DNC and GOP national conventions. In no uncertain terms did he endorse the DNC planks against the sanctity of life and real marriage.
Nice try at deflecting what I said. I never said that we should have a third party. As a matter of fact, at this point I would be against it since a Catholic party would have no chance of winning. All I did is point out that as Catholics the Church says we need to be involved in politics and to vote like a Catholic. Voting like a Catholic means voting for what is most compatible with the teachings of the bishops and the Magisterium. If we have one political party that is totally in love with abortions and teaches that sodomy can be called marriage this political party is obviously fundamentally incompatible with Catholic morality. For more on this, please read Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae.
