U.S. Catholic bishops are considering punishing Catholics who enforce Trump's immigration policy

  • Thread starter Thread starter anikins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark121359 said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
The entire epistle is a correction.
Click to expand...
Umm…yeah right…
Click to expand...
:roll_eyes: Good grief, must everything be spelled out for you? Google “Aquinas on women” and you will see why Mulieris dignitatem was needed.
 
You 're hallucinating. Here is what St. Pope John Paul though of Aquinas.
“The Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology. The Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas’ thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies.… The Magisterium’s intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated synthesis ever attained by human thought, for he could defend the radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the venture proper to reason.”
~St. John Paul II~
Click to expand...
 
Luke6_37 said:
Trump is not Pro-Life. It’s all a con.

Trump is anti-abortion, because he wants to punish poor pregnant women by forcing them to remain pregnant, knowing that it will cause tremendous social problems for them. His selective use of Pro-Life rhetoric is like Satan quoting scripture to defend his greater evil purpose.

It’s all clear as day to those with eyes to see.
Click to expand...
Hang on one minute there hombre. I’d just like to point out that what you really mean by the euphemism “forcing them [women] to remain pregnant” is that Trump believes, or at least claims to believe, we shouldn’t murder children in the womb. You’ve used this several times before, trying to apply the verb “force” to make it sound unjust that a woman becomes pregnant. Nice try.

No one is “forcing” a pregnancy to continue except biology and the very nature of pregnancy, where a new human develops for 9 months until it can survive a bit more independently of its mother. No one is forcibly holding a baby inside a woman for 9 months as though it would just pop out without active outside interference, just to punish her. The only forcing going on in this scenario at all is when the mother or doctor forcibly ends the child’s life. The pregnancy and life that would have otherwise continued without the application of actual external force. Just wanted to set that straight before we continue explaining how Trump is actually Satan because he doesn’t believe in murdering babies.
 
Mark121359 said:
You 're hallucinating. Here is what St. Pope John Paul though of Aquinas.
“The Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology. The Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas’ thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies.… The Magisterium’s intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated synthesis ever attained by human thought, for he could defend the radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the venture proper to reason.”
~St. John Paul II~
Click to expand...
JP2 is praising Aquinas’ method, which was to combine faith with the human intellect to reason theologically. However, even the best method will produce garbage going out if it starts with garbage going in. Aquinas’ fundamental assumptions about women were garbage and that lead him to produce false doctrines about the role & capability of women as people. I would say that his views on women, who are created as fully in the image of God as men, are downright heretical.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
I’ll stick with Aquinas over some guy on the internet.
Click to expand...
Aquinas on women:
On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:18): “It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like to himself.”

I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. Some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from seed: others possess the active and passive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the noblest vital function in plants is generation. Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other. But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: “And they shall be two in one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
Click to expand...
Aquinas came up with a genius method for interpreting scripture based upon faith & reason, but this is absolute garbage based on a false understanding of biology and human nature.
 
Arkansan said:
I’ll stick with Aquinas over some guy on the internet.
Click to expand...
JP2 on the same passage in scripture:
In the description found in Gen 2:1 8-25, the woman is created by God “from the rib” of the man and is placed at his side as another “I”, as the companion of the man, who is alone in the surrounding world of living creatures and who finds in none of them a “helper” suitable for himself. Called into existence in this way, the woman is immediately recognized by the man as “flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones” (cf. Gen 2:23) and for this very reason she is called “woman”. In biblical language this name indicates her essential identity with regard to man - 'is-'issah - something which unfortunately modern languages in general are unable to express: “She shall be called woman ('issah) because she was taken out of man ('is)”: Gen 2:23.

The biblical text provides sufficient bases for recognizing the essential equality of man and woman from the point of view of their humanity.[24] From the very beginning, both are persons, unlike the other living beings in the world about them. The woman is another “I” in a common humanity. From the very beginning they appear as a “unity of the two”, and this signifies that the original solitude is overcome, the solitude in which man does not find “a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:20). Is it only a question here of a “helper” in activity, in “subduing the earth” (cf. Gen 1: 28)? Certainly it is a matter of a life’s companion, with whom, as a wife, the man can unite himself, becoming with her “one flesh” and for this reason leaving “his father and his mother” (cf. Gen 2: 24). Thus in the same context as the creation of man and woman, the biblical account speaks of God’s instituting marriage as an indispensable condition for the transmission of life to new generations, the transmission of life to which marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordered: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28).
Click to expand...
Better, but still faulty as it continues to ignore that Jesus chose women to be his companions and apostles as well.

However, at least women are now rightly seen as equal to men & created perfectly in the image of God. She is the helper not only in procreation but in works as well.
 
pnewton said:
Rest assured, I will answer more warily, if at all.
Click to expand...
No need to be wary, only charitable.

And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing (1 Cor 13:2).
 
Last edited:
Luke6_37 said:
40.png
Arkansan:
I’ll stick with Aquinas over some guy on the internet.
Click to expand...
Aquinas on women:
On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:18): “It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like to himself.”

I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. Some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from seed: others possess the active and passive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the noblest vital function in plants is generation. Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other. But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: “And they shall be two in one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
Click to expand...
Aquinas came up with a genius method for interpreting scripture based upon faith & reason, but this is absolute garbage based on a false understanding of biology and human nature.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what your objection to this is. You seem to be engaged in the standard liberal tactic of point-and-stutter.
Luke6_37 said:
Better, but still faulty as it continues to ignore that Jesus chose women to be his companions and apostles as well.
Click to expand...
Oh I see. You don’t actually recognize JPII as an authority, but you think that name-dropping him will get the rest of us to agree with you.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
Please specify what specific statement you think was wrong.
Click to expand...
Go back and read what I highlighted in bold & italics in the original quotes…
40.png
U.S. Catholic bishops are considering punishing Catholics who enforce Trump's immigration policy Catholic News
Aquinas on women: On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:18): “It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper like to himself.” I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in variou…
Click to expand...
 
It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works

…

Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female.

…

the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition

…

But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male;
Click to expand...
All of these statements are true. Please explain why you believe them to be in error.
 
Last edited:
As I said, if these statements are wrong then explain why. You can’t because they aren’t. You’re engaged in the extremely common liberal tactic of point-and-stutter, expecting that others will start jumping to denounce something simply because you’ve declared that they should.
 
That issue is not this issue. I don’t think anyone would have thought a country would be doing what we are doing in this day and time. My priest today spoke on this and said that it was not a matter of opinion. Any support of this action is immoral. Period.

Our leadership has perpetrated an grave evil.

I am going to ask my priest if he got any backlash from it, not that it matters. He has never, ever spoken up or taken a position on what a politician does or does not do, until this. This week may well go down in history as one of the lowest points our nation hit since the Japanese internment camps, which most said we learned from and would never do again.

So in the next few years, at the midterm, and the next presidential election, I will see if Americans, and American Catholics, really are different than people from history that gave evil a chance to spread.
 
Last edited:
Children are always separated from their parents when the parents are arrested for committing crimes. If you (or your priest, or Cardinal Dinardo) have an argument for why illegal entry should not be prosecuted as a crime, then please present it. But so far, all I’ve seen from those who’ve opposed the policy (both clergy and secular talking heads) has been emotional sloganeering.
 
Realistically, if you believe Trump is evil, and you believe his opponent is for similar reasons (the democratic party’s official platform) I am not sure what you are expecting to happen. One of them will be President. Not that you have to vote for either, but you act as though you are hopeful that folks vote against this “evil.” But there will be a majority voting for evil as you define them one way or another.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
Children are always separated from their parents when the parents are arrested for committing crimes.
Click to expand...
No. They are not always separated on the spot for minor offenses. This is not mandated as a matter of law. If a person is an immediate danger, and committing a crime with a child that is of a serious nature, and no one can be found to take the child, only then do these Nazi tactics come to play. That is because everyone with a well-formed conscience understands how serious this is and traumatizing for children.
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Not that you have to vote for either, but you act as though you are hopeful that folks vote against this “evil.” But there will be a majority voting for evil as you define them one way or another.
Click to expand...
I will say this has effected what I think about the lesser of two evils. Allowing abortion to remain as the law of the land is evil. Making that part of ones policy and starting to perform them through your orders is worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top