H
Hume
Guest
No, you’re right. Once out, the genie doesn’t go back in.
But on the other hand, the more proliferated they become, the greater the chance some total moron is going to detonate one again.
Last edited:
Trump calls out Biden on religion
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
But on the other hand, the more proliferated they become, the greater the chance some total moron is going to detonate one again.
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
I prefer Pope Gelasius I and Famuli vestrae pietatis
states that the Church and the state should work together in society, that the state should recognize the Church’s role in society, with the Church holding superiority in moral matters and the state having superiority in temporal matters.
states that the Church and the state should work together in society, that the state should recognize the Church’s role in society, with the Church holding superiority in moral matters and the state having superiority in temporal matters.
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
You’re not wrong. But I’d rather it be our moron than someone else’s.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Fr Harrison does a great job synthesizing tradition and the Vatican II declaration on religious freedom. He doesn’t deny the Church’s stance on ‘no right to error’ or anything like that. Here’s a great essay of his, a book review.
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
We’re not talking about religious freedom, we’re talking about whether the church should influence government policy and law.
S
StudentMI
Guest
All I can say is read the essay. He doesn’t deny that.
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
I will read it in the morning
B
buffalo
Guest
Hume:
"“Why do I have to repent, why do I have to ask for forgiveness if [I’m] not making mistakes?”
Not the first nominal Christian, poorly catechized, who “just doesn’t get it”, won’t be the last.
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
Figure of speech. (And he would lose at least one voter — the person he shot! )
Hume:
Not “okay”, but fairly trivial where the governing of the Republic is concerned. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln had unconventional religious ideas too.
No, not a “Catholic theocracy”, but I would like to see everyone be Catholic, and for the laws to be entirely compatible with Catholic social doctrine, of which the right to life is a part. The Church has her job to do, and the state has its job to do. Rome doesn’t fix potholes and the state doesn’t attempt to make skipping Sunday Mass illegal.HomeschoolDad:
Are you saying that “Catholics (sh)ould take over and establish a Catholic theocracy”, confirming the fears of Protestants?
I do not care who says that we should be a Catholic theocracy, the sentiment is anti-Catholic. No reasonably knowledgeable Catholic politician would ever support a proposition like that.
And a great example of why you don’t contracept yourself down to replacement level or even below it. (In all fairness, NFP could be used to the same end.)HomeschoolDad:
If they’d just kept having kids and living as Catholics they’d have ruled the country in a few generations.
Great example of why you don’t compromise for power.
Quite right, but in a pluralistic society, we have to tolerate such separation. And as I said above, Church and state have different jobs to do.
Works for me.
One more thing I would add, trying to get “abortion rights” whittled back as much as is possible in our society is not “trying to establish a Catholic theocracy” or “taking over”. We are talking murder here. It doesn’t get any more basic than that. Just telling it like it is, we have a situation where possibly 60 percent of the population (or more) “just doesn’t get it” and does not comprehend that unborn human life is worthy of defense and protection at all stages. I’m not willing to stand back and give the majority its way, no more than I would be, if that same majority believed it was something less than murder, to take the life of a child up to nine months after birth. I’m not willing to stand by and watch babies being killed because the majority has a “blind spot” about it.
L
LilyM
Guest
Point of Armageddon is that it woyld be the end for EVERYONE, not just the guys without nukes … probably even for little old me here in outback Australia …Hume:
I guess you don’t believe in Armageddon
it is only a matter of when and which side we will be on!
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
But is it logically weak? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, with the exception of when evidence should be present. God was a terrible comparison though, because why he is unseen, there is a lot of evidence for his existence.
You are correct. If we can leave the Fifth Century and fast forward to the Twentieth, we read in Dignitatis Humanae, " This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom." Anyone believing in a Catholic theocracy should be tempered by the words of that document, if not by the history of brutality in theocracies since the birth of Jesus.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
It is not necessarily a ‘blind spot’; it might also be a part of one’s religious teaching. Likewise, you might not consider it murder to defend yourself or your country during wartime; however, a Quaker might consider this murder, not believing in a just-war doctrine in the same way as you do. Thus in Judaism, abortion is sometimes justified, not only to save the life of the mother, but also to save the life of a healthy unborn baby who is being threatened by an unhealthy unborn baby. There are other leniencies which permit abortion according to Jewish teaching, as well as other religious teaching. The issue is not so cut-and-dried as it is in Catholicism. Further, there may be some religion that goes even further in banning abortion than Catholicism. That is, if a religion banned the unintentional killing of the unborn baby, which Catholicism does NOT do, that religion would consider the Catholic position of “passive” killing to be murder. You would not agree, but your position is based on your religious belief, not theirs. This is why, I believe, abortion must be decided according to the moral and religious beliefs of the mother, her family, and her religion, not according to one specific religious teaching. To me, abortion is a component of religious freedom. It is not only a matter of women’s rights but women’s religious rights.
Last edited:
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
No ones talking about establishing a theocracy. To my knowledge there has never been a country which established a catholic theocracy with the exception of the Vatican/Papal States, and I think the Papal States are even a stretch.
It’s not a theocratic government to have the laws of a nation formed under the guidance of the churches teachings to prohibit evil from becoming enshrined in law and given legitimacy.
It’s not a theocratic government to have the laws of a nation formed under the guidance of the churches teachings to prohibit evil from becoming enshrined in law and given legitimacy.
D
Dovekin
Guest
This is a description of Catholic Theocracy, no matter how much you deny it. It may not be what you intended, but you paint a picture of anti-Catholic rhetoric being fulfilled. It is the logic you are using here. “Until we were strong enough, Catholics could not force morality on others. Now we should.”
farronwolf
New member
It isn’t murder in the legal sense. It is only murder in the moral sense depending on your beliefs.
There in lies the problem. People find reason all the time to do this and that right up to the line that it is still legal without looking at the morality of it. Politicians especially. And people (voter) give them a pass. Commonly heard is, I didn’t elect them for their morals, I elected them to run the state or country or whatever.
So when voters give politicians a pass for being completely immoral because it isn’t against the law, they only promote the behavior.
Look at some of the presidential candidates over the past 50 years. How many of them had to drop out of the race because of extra marital affairs. 20-30 years ago, that was a death sentence. Not today though. Even the silent majority, which used to call themselves the moral majority thinks nothing of it today. I guess that is why they dropped the moral and substituted silent on the term.
D
Dovekin
Guest
If you say people have a right to own guns, would any reasonable person say you are not saying people can use them (to kill each other)?
Is that clearer? I am not endorsing your opinion, just trying to apply your logic. You are pro-choice on guns, just admit it. The violation of a woman in forcing her to bring her pregnancy to term may be less than the violation of the child, but is far greater than the violation of someone by denying them a right to own a gun.
If you want to save children’s lives, limit gun ownership. Then you might have some credibility when you seek to save children’s lives by outlawing abortion.
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
I can’t even wrap my head around the lunacy of the comparison you’re trying to make.
Guns can be used morally or immorally, but self defense is a right recognized by the church and guns are a tool to facilitate the exercise of that right.
There is no moral use for an abortion under any circumstances.
Guns can be used morally or immorally, but self defense is a right recognized by the church and guns are a tool to facilitate the exercise of that right.
There is no moral use for an abortion under any circumstances.
farronwolf
New member
Really? What about a tubal pregnancy? Would that not be considered an abortion, but one that takes place because the baby isn’t going to be viable, but the mother stands of good chance of having serious medical problems or death as a result of?
The treatment there is a removal of the diseased organ, specifically the tube where the pregnancy occurred.
The the death of the unborn child happens is not the end goal, but is an effect of a licit treatment of a medical problem.
Abortion seeks specifically the death of an unborn child as the end goal…and that is a critical difference.
Last edited:
- Status