Trump Could Win It All

[gracepoole]

What is a “Neo-Catholic”?

Jon

Here’s Mark Shea’s definition (which I’m guessing might be the most amenable here): “A Catholic whose enthusiasms and opinions are mostly defined by John Paul II’s papacy.”

There are others, though, like this. Note that this second source relies on the origin of the term in Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The dictionary has a weird definition, and I doubt that’s what was meant but…

dictionary.reference.com/browse/neo-catholic

“of or relating to those Anglicans who avowedly prefer the doctrines, rituals, etc., of the Roman Catholic Church to those of the Anglican communion.”

Ehhhhh,this definitions sounds about right …
Having said thatcInwill wait for GracePoole to explain her comment

 

[Path_Finder]

By neo ,are you saying the majority of Catholics are neophytes?How would you come to that conclusion?

It does not appear to be a flattering label per how it was originally proposed.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Here’s Mark Shea’s definition (which I’m guessing might be the most amenable here): “A Catholic whose enthusiasms and opinions are mostly defined by John Paul II’s papacy.”

There are others, though, like this. Note that this second source relies on the origin of the term in Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America.

Based on both definitions,I would offer that your are off the mark in stating most here are neo Catholucs.I consider myself,traditional,IMO,that more aptly defines CAF as a whole.

 

[gracepoole]

It does not appear to be a flattering label per how it was originally proposed.

You are making an unwarranted assumption.

 

[gracepoole]

Based on both definitions,I would offer that your are off the mark in stating most here are neo Catholucs.I consider myself,traditional,IMO,that more aptly defines CAF as a whole.

Could be. I don’t find that most regulars here are into the Latin Mass or disagree with most post-Vatican II changes. Most seem to like reverent OF Masses, believe fervently in religious freedom, agree with ecumenism, etc.

 

[JonNC]

Here’s Mark Shea’s definition (which I’m guessing might be the most amenable here): “A Catholic whose enthusiasms and opinions are mostly defined by John Paul II’s papacy.”

There are others, though, like this. Note that this second source relies on the origin of the term in Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America.

Thanks

Jon

 

[Path_Finder]

You are making an unwarranted assumption.

I’m sure you already know this, Sy, but this forum is comprised largely of “Neo-Catholics” and it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s not representative of most Catholics, at least not those in the US.

Well, if one is saying this forum is comprised largely of “Neo-Catholics”, perhaps we can try to figure out who is being discussed.

Add on to this, I believe to question another s faith is not acceptable.

I can say “The Catholic Church doesn’t believe in X”, “Catholics should not do X” but saying “Some Catholics here do X” is questioning their faith and is aimed at certain persons.

 

[gracepoole]

Well, if one is saying this forum is comprised largely of “Neo-Catholics”, perhaps we can try to figure out who is being discussed.

Add on to this, I believe to question another s faith is not acceptable.

I can say “The Catholic Church doesn’t believe in X”, “Catholics should not do X” but saying “Some Catholics here do X” is questioning their faith and is aimed at certain persons.

No one questioned anyone’s faith. You are really reaching here.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Could be. I don’t find that most regulars here are into the Latin Mass or disagree with most post-Vatican II changes. Most seem to like reverent OF Masses, believe fervently in religious freedom, agree with ecumenism, etc.

ok,I see your point,I misunderstood the definitions in the article,as I would fall into the category you describe,with the exception of a few issues.

 

[grotto]

Here’s Mark Shea’s definition (which I’m guessing might be the most amenable here): “A Catholic whose enthusiasms and opinions are mostly defined by John Paul II’s papacy.”

There are others, though, like this. Note that this second source relies on the origin of the term in Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America.

---

Ahem! The sources you mention are not reliable and are slanted toward error. Holy Father Saint John Paul should not be used to lend credibility to the error describing a member of the Catholic Church. And, wikipedia? really? Never heard of Mark Shea either.

 

[JimG]

In many ways I agree. What was the wealthiest nation in the world is now the most indebted, all because of the misguided and frankly dangerous notion that government at a central level can care better for those in need than private groups at a local level.

The Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity, along with the constitutional limits on government power, would go a long way to reverse this horrible trend, that even though the central government has spent trillions upon trillions of dollars since the end of WWII on social welfare programs, we still have the situation you have mentioned. It is time to get government out of the way, stop government from causing so much harm and tragedy at such a high price.

Jon

A very good point. I recently heard former Sen. Alan Simpson say that the nation had perhaps one last chance to solve the crisis of the out of control national debt by reigning in the entitlement state. He seemed to think that there might even be some consensus within Congress for such an undertaking. The question though, is whether it could be seriously undertaken without virtual revolt of the once independent American people. But if not undertaken, the result will be eventual collapse into chaos and tyranny.

 

[RACJ]

I would vote for Trump over Predator Bill’s enabler, without enthusiasm.

 

[JonNC]

A very good point. I recently heard former Sen. Alan Simpson say that the nation had perhaps one last chance to solve the crisis of the out of control national debt by reigning in the entitlement state. He seemed to think that there might even be some consensus within Congress for such an undertaking. The question though, is whether it could be seriously undertaken without virtual revolt of the once independent American people. But if not undertaken, the result will be eventual collapse into chaos and tyranny.

I think we are closer to being “Greece” than most realize or will admit. That said, we have at our disposal, assuming a willingness to control spending - really control it, significant natural resources that, if tapped, would provide the economic engine needed to over come our massive indebtedness, of which the $19 trillion budget debt is just the tip of the iceberg.
If can be done.

Jon

 

[Ridgerunner]

Should a faithful Catholic then vote at all?

And faithful Catholics, as I understand it, are to believe in a right to life from conception to natural death. But I just don’t see much good ahead for a life in a womb, if after birth that life does not have things such as proper healthcare, adequate food and a roof over their heads.

A faithful Catholic has an obligation to oppose evil to the extent he is able to do it.

If you would kill unborn children merely because you think their quality of life won’t be a life you think worth living, I’m wondering who else you would euthanize for the same reason.

I’m reminded of two things. One being a book called “City of Joy” about life in the worst imaginable slums in Calcutta. Really grim. Yet those people have joy in their lives and don’t kill themselves or “mercy kill” others. Their suicide rate is far lower than it is in the fat, privileged west in which people expect much and think life not worth living if they don’t get it. Nor do they arrogate to themselves the “right” to terminate lives they think are worse than their own.

I’m also reminded of a seminar about “living wills” in which a lawyer friend of mine was a panelist. There was a minister, a lawyer, a doctor, a couple of nurses, a psychiatrist, a social worker. It was before hundreds of healthcare students of all kinds.

The lawyer and the doctor got into an argument over passing them around to health providers. The lawyer advised giving them only to trusted family members. The doctor advised giving them in advance to any provider the person ever saw.

Eventually, the argument came down to a “life worth living”. The doctor opined that medical care should be withheld if a person could no longer do those things he most enjoyed in life. “Does that include golf?” asked the lawyer? Would you withhold care if the patient could no longer play golf, but could perhaps learn to enjoy reading, listening to music, or even watching television?"

“Yes I would” replied the doctor.

The crowd murmered, of course, and various audience members were for one opinion or the other. Some, of course, were put to wonder just where on the continuum of “life worth living” are any of us willing to kill another.

I say no human being has the right to decide whether the life of another is worth living or not. To think otherwise is an inhuman, totalitarian mindset, and history is replete with examples where it can lead.

 

[Sy_Noe]

A faithful Catholic has an obligation to oppose evil to the extent he is able to do it.

If you would kill unborn children merely because you think their quality of life won’t be a life you think worth living, I’m wondering who else you would euthanize for the same reason.

I’m reminded of two things. One being a book called “City of Joy” about life in the worst imaginable slums in Calcutta. Really grim. Yet those people have joy in their lives and don’t kill themselves or “mercy kill” others. Their suicide rate is far lower than it is in the fat, privileged west in which people expect much and think life not worth living if they don’t get it. Nor do they arrogate to themselves the “right” to terminate lives they think are worse than their own.

I’m also reminded of a seminar about “living wills” in which a lawyer friend of mine was a panelist. There was a minister, a lawyer, a doctor, a couple of nurses, a psychiatrist, a social worker. It was before hundreds of healthcare students of all kinds.

The lawyer and the doctor got into an argument over passing them around to health providers. The lawyer advised giving them only to trusted family members. The doctor advised giving them in advance to any provider the person ever saw.

Eventually, the argument came down to a “life worth living”. The doctor opined that medical care should be withheld if a person could no longer do those things he most enjoyed in life. “Does that include golf?” asked the lawyer? Would you withhold care if the patient could no longer play golf, but could perhaps learn to enjoy reading, listening to music, or even watching television?"

“Yes I would” replied the doctor.

The crowd murmered, of course, and various audience members were for one opinion or the other. Some, of course, were put to wonder just where on the continuum of “life worth living” are any of us willing to kill another.

I say no human being has the right to decide whether the life of another is worth living or not. To think otherwise is an inhuman, totalitarian mindset, and history is replete with examples where it can lead.

I don’t recall saying I personally would “kill” an unborn life. The only point I was trying to make was in my view, outside of the womb, an innocent human person for instance needs healthcare and food, and a warm place on a cold winter’s night or a cool place in extreme heat, so they don’t suffer or even die from not getting proper healthcare early enough or from malnutrition or from a prolonged amount of time outside in below freezing temperatures in extreme heat, sleeping at night under a bridge. Or that the state doesn’t execute an innocent person and it’s too late. I’d also probably be a bit more cautious than to say I’d bomb the h*** out of them as Trump has said. Apparently I didn’t make the point well enough though for you to understand what I was trying to say. But I’m sure I’m not always perfect at articulating.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t recall saying I personally would “kill” an unborn life. The only point I was trying to make was in my view, outside of the womb, an innocent human person for instance needs healthcare and food, and a warm place on a cold winter’s night or a cool place in extreme heat, so they don’t suffer or even die from not getting proper healthcare early enough or from malnutrition or from a prolonged amount of time outside in below freezing temperatures in extreme heat, sleeping at night under a bridge. Or that the state doesn’t execute an innocent person and it’s too late. I’d also probably be a bit more cautious than to say I’d bomb the h*** out of them as Trump has said. Apparently I didn’t make the point well enough though for you to understand what I was trying to say. But I’m sure I’m not always perfect at articulating.

I think you’re being too modest. I think you expressed yourself clearly in saying:

“And faithful Catholics, as I understand it, are to believe in a right to life from conception to natural death. But I just don’t see much good ahead for a life in a womb, if after birth that life does not have things such as proper healthcare, adequate food and a roof over their heads.”

It isn’t original with you, of course. It’s part and parcel of the Democrat argument for abortion on demand; one we’ve heard many times. Better that the unborn die than that they live a deprived life. And, of course, someone other than the one to be killed is to be the judge of whether that life is to be worth living or not.

Regardless, the Dem party doesn’t do anything for those “living under bridges” either. It’s a terribly unfortunate thing that any do. But I think it’s fairly well known that, in the U.S., few live like that, and those who do are usually insane people who resist the help offered by “the system”. Any cop, psych ward provider or social worker would testify to that.

That’s a different thing, though. Radical views of the “right to personal autonomy” have led to the proliferation of the “under the bridges” population. (Or the “in the sewers” population like in St. Louis) Nobody advocated a greater degree of obligatory institutionalization until people like the Sandy Hook shooter started popping up. And few now do, even so. If you wanted to argue that the states or the feds ought to provide for more institutional settings, and fail in providing that necessary service, I would agree wholeheartedly. But neither Dems nor Repubs advocate it for the non-shooter mentally ill. Only those who attempt to work with them do.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A faithful Catholic has an obligation to oppose evil to the extent he is able to do it.

I have seen this idea expressed many times, but it seems it is only applied to elections and voting. Why is that?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think you’re being too modest. I think you expressed yourself clearly in saying:

“And faithful Catholics, as I understand it, are to believe in a right to life from conception to natural death. But I just don’t see much good ahead for a life in a womb, if after birth that life does not have things such as proper healthcare, adequate food and a roof over their heads.”

It isn’t original with you, of course. It’s part and parcel of the Democrat argument for abortion on demand; one we’ve heard many times. Better that the unborn die than that they live a deprived life.

This is an illogical conclusion from Sy Noe’s statement. That statement just doesn’t imply it is better that the unborn die than that they live a deprived life. So I call Strawman on that argument.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have seen this idea expressed many times, but it seems it is only applied to elections and voting. Why is that?

I can’t speak for others in this regard, though certainly many Catholics oppose evil in other ways. Possibly you would do well to widen your circle of acquaintance.