S
stpurl
Guest
No, it means that if you heard the non negotiables were a teaching of lay people you can trace that canard to an ‘ecumenical blog’.
WALSH: Biden Endorses The Idea That 8-Year-Olds Can Choose Their Gender, Proving That He Is Owned By The Radical Left
- Status
S
stpurl
Guest
So it something is written by ‘lay people’ it is automatically not something you have to hear? Lay people make no contributions? Pope Francis didn’t ask the bishops to get the lay people involved, ask for more involvement by non religious etc? It seems as if that’s what you’re saying. It seems as if you didn’t bother to examine all the sources (ETWN has them all listed out for you) regarding this ‘so-called lay person document’ on non negotiables and surprise, surprise, the major players are Pope Francis, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict, the USCCB. . Clergy all.
S
stpurl
Guest
And when I find that the Vatican or the bishops fundamentally disagree with your purported ‘lay documents’ (please post if you will the source which gives the authorship, since you’re saying it was ‘lay people’ you must have proof) and that there are not ‘non-negotiables’ in Catholic teaching, and that there is some magic ‘hierarchy document’ that fundamentally disagrees with the idea of non-negotiables along the lines that we see on CA, and EWTN, and the USCCB. . . Then I might consider that you’d have a point there. But I don’t see that happening.
S
stpurl
Guest
And where exactly does that prove that the five non negotiables mentioned specifically throughout, and found on the USCCB website itself, are part of the ‘handouts and voter guides produced”?
S
stpurl
Guest
In that same document, Forming doctrines for Faithful citizenship, rev 2019, it specifically states, “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority as it directly affects life itself.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
They’re a lot smarter than some think, and they have developed a clear moral sense, like faithful Catholics often do. They look at what Trump actually does, not what some odious left wing medium says about him. And what he actually does is a good deal more moral than what the liberals do and espouse.
It’s like developing any human capacity. They see immorality for what it is.
S
stpurl
Guest
Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists practices such as cloning and homosexual ‘marriage’ as extremely dangerous, the first for its impact on human life itself, the second the destruction of the human family.
And while racism, for example, is finally being more fully addressed, it does not have the equivalence, though one could argue it is if anything ‘6th’ on the list, very important, but above all, despite the wails and gnashing of teeth, neither US political party explictly espouses ‘racism’ as part of its platform. One can think one party over the other is more sensitive or is more likely to initiate positive change, but there is a huge difference between these scenarios:
First: Democrats and Republicans both decry racism. The platforms disagree to an extent on how to handle the problem, but both agree it is a problem.
Second scenario: Democrats uphold abortion, cloning, and homosexual marriage. Republicans oppose it.
In the first scenario, both parties and the Church accept that racism is an evil. There are several possible ways to address the problem.
In the second scenario, the Republicans and the Church both believe abortion and homosexual marriages are evils. The Democrats do not and, in fact, would legislate ‘protections’ to keep the evils and to punish those who disagree. There are not ‘legitimate ways’ that the parties disagree on; it is quite simply that one completely upholds and allows evil, and the other does not, AS A PART OF THE PLATFORM, despite individual ‘actions’ of their proponents.
And while racism, for example, is finally being more fully addressed, it does not have the equivalence, though one could argue it is if anything ‘6th’ on the list, very important, but above all, despite the wails and gnashing of teeth, neither US political party explictly espouses ‘racism’ as part of its platform. One can think one party over the other is more sensitive or is more likely to initiate positive change, but there is a huge difference between these scenarios:
First: Democrats and Republicans both decry racism. The platforms disagree to an extent on how to handle the problem, but both agree it is a problem.
Second scenario: Democrats uphold abortion, cloning, and homosexual marriage. Republicans oppose it.
In the first scenario, both parties and the Church accept that racism is an evil. There are several possible ways to address the problem.
In the second scenario, the Republicans and the Church both believe abortion and homosexual marriages are evils. The Democrats do not and, in fact, would legislate ‘protections’ to keep the evils and to punish those who disagree. There are not ‘legitimate ways’ that the parties disagree on; it is quite simply that one completely upholds and allows evil, and the other does not, AS A PART OF THE PLATFORM, despite individual ‘actions’ of their proponents.
F
FrankFletcher
Guest
I’m a faithful Catholic. How does that fit with the fact that I disagree with all of your beliefs about Trump? Is it really the best you can do to say people like me are just brainwashed by the media?FrankFletcher:
They’re a lot smarter than some think, and they have developed a clear moral sense, like faithful Catholics often do. They look at what Trump actually does, not what some odious left wing medium says about him. And what he actually does is a good deal more moral than what the liberals do and espouse.
It’s like developing any human capacity. They see immorality for what it is.
U
upant
Guest
a teaching of the popes
Pope Benedict XVI, Address to European Parliamentary Group, 30 March 2006.
(bold mine)
Pope John Paul defining non-negotiable… but not using the words. (bold mine)
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I didn’t say you are brainwashed by the media.
It’s not me you are disagreeing with. It’s the Church. And it’s not “about Trump”. It’s about killing.
F
FrankFletcher
Guest
No, it’s you I disagree with. The church and I are square.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This kind of discussion always reminds me of a vignette in “Gulag Archipelago”. He recounts how one of the victims of Stalin’s persecutions was sentenced, unjustly, to death. Everybody, including the government functionaries knew innocent people were being killed all the time.
This condemned man said to the jailer as he was being taken to the execution room: “You are responsible for my death, and you alone. Not Stalin, Not Beria, not even the rifleman, but you. But for you, I would not be going to my execution. It is on your soul.”
His point was that one who participates in the unjust killing of another is guilty of the whole crime. Killing does not admit of degrees.
This condemned man said to the jailer as he was being taken to the execution room: “You are responsible for my death, and you alone. Not Stalin, Not Beria, not even the rifleman, but you. But for you, I would not be going to my execution. It is on your soul.”
His point was that one who participates in the unjust killing of another is guilty of the whole crime. Killing does not admit of degrees.
Oh, I see. So what good are you trying to achieve by voting for abortion that is equal in gravity (proportionate) to the death of a million innocents per year? Or conversely, what evil are you preventing that is equal in gravity to that million deaths?
F
FrankFletcher
Guest
The better question is why would I spend time attempting to explain myself to a stranger on the internet who sees his vote as ordained by God and my vote as sanctioned by Satan. I’ve seen plenty of folks provide answers to you already. You have more time and patience than I do.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Never did I say my vote is ordained by God; only by the teachings of the Church as expressed by the Popes and the bishops of the U.S.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
You are saying the same thing about Evangelicals and Trump.
F
FrankFletcher
Guest
I actually think evangelicals have been lied to by their self-appointed pastors and churches.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Nonetheless it looks like you are guilty of the samething you were complaing about.
Last edited:
F
FrankFletcher
Guest
I recognize the lies I’ve been told. So no, the situation isn’t identical.
U
upant
Guest
are Pope Benedict and Pope St John Paul II both wrong?
they both speak in terms of specific principles
U
upant
Guest
in light of past popes and the normal misinformation that surrounds Frances, I believe the article doesn’t carry the proper context.
the papers have a way of trying to play with his words to get them to mean what they want. as in this case, the article says it was clearly in context with the Italian political use of non-negotiable which may not align with the past pope’s world views.
- Status