D
Divine3
Guest
Last edited:
- Status
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
I am going to put this here and in the just war thread. It is Venerable Bishop Sheen talking in 1943 about the first and second world war and dictators.
It could have been given today, just changing names etc in my opinion.
Please watch it.
It could have been given today, just changing names etc in my opinion.
Please watch it.
Last edited:
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
c’mon, don’t you know that everything the US does is evil and bad and everything a county in the Middle East does is just retaliation for the evil the US did?OneSheep:
Do you realize that the assassination wasn’t random, it was in response to an attack on our embassy, where the perpetrators were chanting “Down with USA” and “Death to America”? And he was already responsible for hundreds of American deaths and more attacks were planned. Do you really think diplomacy could work with people like these?
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
I question modern changes to Catholic teaching, yes.CatholicSooner:
Okay, you question the catechism.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Thanks. I’ll watch it over my lunch break today
O
OneSheep
Guest
Every change that has ever been made is a “modern change”. When the church made changes concerning slavery, it was a “modern change”.
I watched it, and there were some good things stated, but I heard a man with anger, especially near the end. What did you glean from it? Are there any people “intrinsically wicked”? What is the “soft barbarism” he refers to, and what is the Gospel or catechetical basis for such?
Do you see that in WWII there were instances where soldiers defending their own land from foreign invaders, but that today the US is the one who invaded a foreign country (Iraq), under false pretenses? Is it to be seen that US assassination of a foreign leader is a Christian way of solving world problems?
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
correct. But the further you get away from the time of the apostles, the changes should be more scrutinized.CatholicSooner:
Every change that has ever been made is a “modern change”. When the church made changes concerning slavery, it was a “modern change”.
The Church said capital punishment was just for a very long time. And the Pope changed that with a stroke of a pen.
It should be scrutinized. Maybe he is right. Maybe he is wrong. But we as laity should never just bury our heads in the sand and accept whatever comes from Rome must be good.
O
OneSheep
Guest
It was, and so was slavery. Slavery, when it was an alternative to killing enemies and their families in war, was a better alternative. Slavery, when it was an alternative to starvation, was a better alternative.
When capital punishment was allowed by the catechism, in those times, it was the only certain means of protecting people.
Yes, they are scrutinized, and we know that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church. This is our faith. Check the CCC reference I posted earlier. Punishment is supposed to be medicinal. Death is not medicinal, but death was meted to protect the populace from a dangerous person. Since we have prisons today that essentially guarantee public safety, the compromise of the CCC, allowing a non-medicinal punishment, is no longer necessary.
Killing Soleimani did not stop Iranian plans to carry out acts against Americans, if there were such plans (which have not been proven). Soleimani was simply replaced, and now the vast majority of the Iraqi populace, including their government, wants us out. The assassination was not only against Just War Doctrine and against Christian mores and the catechism, but it was extremely foolish.
There is no “maybe” about it. The death penalty was a compromise that is no longer necessary.
All attitude about the death penalty is to begin with forgiveness. If we forgive a person who has committed a horrible crime, then we are in the Christ-centered mindset. If not, then we are not. If we have forgiven, we do not want a person dead, though we do want the person corrected. If we want the person dead, then we have not forgiven, we are holding onto desire for revenge.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
I agree with you there. I did not combine them. I am saying that we must approach justice with forgiving hearts, not vengeful hearts.
Really? Where?
Yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Church. Pope Francis did not change the catechism by himself. The Bishops, also, are against the death penalty, as well as the majority of Catholics. It is the Spirit working in the world.
That’s a pretty tough statement, right? People are going to disagree, and I agree with @CatholicSooner that it is okay to have some doubts about things. When I object to a teaching, I don’t say I’m right, I just say that it is something to be a bit wary about, something to be patient about. Being Catholic is being in communion, sharing the Body of Christ. I would hope that people who disagree can do so and remain sharing the meal, sharing the Eucharist.
That’s just silly. It is the Holy Spirit that makes the changes, not humans. Humans are simply messengers. Do you seriously think that God is going to suddenly say that abortion is just fine?
It is uncharitable to criticize any Pope. I can ask questions, present a point of view, but outright criticism presents the view that I have more access to the Spirit than he does. That would be a position of ignorance on my part.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Third world countries could still be incapable of protecting their people from evil without capital punishment. Places where they can’t even get clean water or food for prisoners.CatholicSooner:
I agree with you there. I did not combine them. I am saying that we must approach justice with forgiving hearts, not vengeful hearts.
Really? Where?
Yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Church. Pope Francis did not change the catechism by himself. The Bishops, also, are against the death penalty, as well as the majority of Catholics. It is the Spirit working in the world.
That’s a pretty tough statement, right? People are going to disagree, and I agree with @CatholicSooner that it is okay to have some doubts about things. When I object to a teaching, I don’t say I’m right, I just say that it is something to be a bit wary about, something to be patient about. Being Catholic is being in communion, sharing the Body of Christ. I would hope that people who disagree can do so and remain sharing the meal, sharing the Eucharist.
That’s just silly. It is the Holy Spirit that makes the changes, not humans. Humans are simply messengers. Do you seriously think that God is going to suddenly say that abortion is just fine?
It is uncharitable to criticize any Pope. I can ask questions, present a point of view, but outright criticism presents the view that I have more access to the Spirit than he does. That would be a position of ignorance on my part.
God would never say that abortion is fine. I think you misread what i typed. I said that what the Pope did with the death penalty he could also do to abortion. Saying there is no instance ever where it is acceptable.
It is not ignorance to criticze a Pope. I can criticize a Pope for allowing idol worship in the Vatican. I can criticize evil Popes of the past. If a Pope is partaking in sin, I can criticize the Pope. There is nothing in Church teaching that I’m aware of that says otherwise.
And I apologize for how I composed this post. I don’t understand how to separate quotes on a post to respond to each statement
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Just to be clear, the Church has since the beginning defined that there is no instance ever where direct abortion is acceptable.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Will you please stop putting words in my mouth? I haven’t once used the word direct in front of abortion. You are moving the goal posts and making this discussion about something that it isn’t about. if you can’t stop doing that, then there is no reason to carry on the conversationCatholicSooner:
Just to be clear, the Church has since the beginning defined that there is no instance ever where direct abortion is acceptable.
D
Divine3
Guest
This is excellent!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Like America, Hezbollah means well, and does some very good things, but also is responsible for doing evil.
But they also try to make life better for people, at least those who are of their “tribe”, which is a pretty large part of Lebanese population, correct?
Yes, they want justice, but in doing so they create more insecurity for Lebanese people.
Yes, they are trying to protect the regime that seems to protect them.
And America assists Saudi Arabia in bombing the Houthis. It is war, unjust war.
Hmm. I read a little on this. While the relationship between Hezbollah and Latin American Lebanese doesn’t seem to be very strong, they should definitely be watched.
I think that you ask a legitimate question, coming from a very knowledgeable position. What would be dangerous to do is to simply label them as “enemy” and decide that the only thing to be done is to annihilate them. They are people just like you and I who want their own people to be protected. What needs to be done is for the US and Israel to sit down with Hezbollah and listen to their concerns, and for Hezbollah to listen to US and Israeli concerns. This is diplomacy, but good diplomacy begins with hearts that understand and forgive.
So what we can do together is pray for peace and urge people to understand and forgive their enemies. We don’t have to trust our enemies, that is something that takes a lot of time and interaction. What is helpful is to let go of our animosity and forgive, and hopefully reconcile (eventually). There are solutions, but the trouble is that at least on the Israel/US side, our governments are unwilling to stop confiscating (stealing) land and resources from Palestinians, or give the Palestinians the right to their own nation.
The result of this refusal to talk is that it makes war the “only answer”, and what has happened in Lebanon over the years is the fallout of this very unwise and unethical approach on the part of the US and Israel. Hezbollah is by no means an “innocent player”, but it is the people in power (US and Israel) who must take the first step on trying to find diplomatic solutions.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Which third world country?
Before doing this, it would be much wiser to educate oneself about what was intended. It is Christian to give people the benefit of the doubt. Do you see what I mean? People seem to take the first attitude that the Pope is wrong rather than trying to understand what happened. We need to be aware of polarity in the Church, and call people to Eucharist rather than polarity.
Instead of using the balloon on the top left when you hit reply, simply highlight the part of my post you want to respond to, and a “quote” selection tab will come up. When you hit that tab, the response box forms just as it does when you hit “reply”. Then you can select other parts to quote also.
L
LebaneseCatbolic
Guest
I don’t understand what we are to do with them. They refuse to negotiate. Trump said he is open yet they always refuse. Are we to just let them take advantage of us? Are we to let them take whatever and whoever they want? We are to keep their ideology from expanding, and stop the spread of terrorism.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
He has a series of these during wartime.
Watching his later tv series, i am learning he gets very passionate about his topic. Fulton Sheen was a master at delivery. Given he will become canonized , God willing, I have started watching him to know the man.
I agree that killing these dictators doesnt solve the issue. Sure it might in the short term. but history is telling us, in the last decades, this has not been solved long term.
Satan is wicked, as a Catholic I see intinsically wicked as corruption of good and a choice in our free will.
I am not sure on the soft barbarism yet, and am continuing to watch.
Fulton Sheen had a lot of investment in America and it comes out in his talks over the decades. The talks of the 60s and 70s discuss the corruption of society in an interesting manner.
‘We put down the beads, the hippies pick them up, nuns drop the habit, girls start wearing maxi dresses’.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
President Trump at times speaks using “alternate facts”, he is well known to speak in hyperbole, to bend and stretch the truth.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
The assassination got Iran to back down. Even though he was immediately replaced, they feared to engage in any serious retaliation. Why? Because President Trump made it clear that we can and will hit back. You error because you do not recognize any distinction between a single assassination and a full-scale war. When dealing with an irrational enemy who has committed acts of war, you have to knock some sense into them before negotiation is possible. They killed one of ours, so we killed one of theirs so that we could make peace.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
He has a whole series, I am starting at the beginning and intend to travel through his 30 or 40 year journey on tv
- Status