What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[z0wb13]

So Planned Parenthood’s subsidized abortions could come out of another Department and not violate the Hyde Amendment.

right, but PP has separate staff and facilities to ensure this doesn’t happen. what you are proposing is a red herring.

And this is from the people who said we don’t have the right to force our beliefs on them.

it’s not like people are being forced to have abortions, so i don’t know what you are talking about. what you are claiming is like saying that not smoking is a habit. besides, if your objection to abortion access is religious, then i’m at a loss for how you don’t see that it shouldn’t effect people that aren’t catholic. a country that bases it’s laws on a particular religious sect’s beliefs is called a theocracy.

 

[sedonaman]

right, but PP has separate staff and facilities to ensure this doesn’t happen. what you are proposing is a red herring.

You don’t understand the concept of fungibility. Say PP wants to spend $500K on sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot fetish and $500K on abortions. The government funds it $500K for anything but abortion, and other donors contribute with no restrictions. PP simply transfers $500K of unrestricted money to abortions and uses the government’s $500K to buy the sandals. Voilà ! Br’er Rabbit got to where he wanted to be, and the government “didn’t” fund abortions.

it’s not like people are being forced to have abortions, so i don’t know what you are talking about. what you are claiming is like saying that not smoking is a habit. besides, if your objection to abortion access is religious, then i’m at a loss for how you don’t see that it shouldn’t effect people that aren’t catholic. a country that bases it’s laws on a particular religious sect’s beliefs is called a theocracy.

You don’t understand that when you force people to finance something, you are forcing them to support it? Why does the ACLU go around feverishly looking to tie a single tax dollar to religion so it can file another “separation of church and state” lawsuit?

We are a theocracy because we codified “Thou shalt not steal”?

 

[JReducation]

The answer to this question is found in today’s Gospel. “Go out and teach all nations.”

The Church has a command, from Christ, to teach the truth to all nations, whether they want to hear it or not. That’s why Christians have been martyred. Some people did not like what they had to say. Oh well . . . you cannot hide truth

If you’re a Catholic, this is a non-question. The problem that we have in this country is that we want to be patriots first and Catholics second. This is what Bl. John Paul called The Great American Error. You cannot democratize truth. He goes into this in Evangelium Vitae. Pius X also said something similar to Modernist Europe. Democracy is a means, not an end. When we set out to protect democracy at the expense of truth, we have made democracy an end.

Democracy must exist, because people must be free to teach all nations the truth. Therefore, it is at the service of truth. It is not a truth in and of itself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sedonaman]

… You cannot democratize truth. …
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF

Yes, and in this country we try to resolve every difference by compromise, but have failed to learn that some issues just don’t lend themselves to compromise. No one is happy when you divide the baby, least of all the baby. An example is slavery.

They tried to draw lines on a map saying where slavery was legal and where it is not, where a slave was a person and where he was not. It didn’t work. They even tried to declare that slaves were 3/5 of a person for representation purposes. [The irony here is that a slave would have been better off had he not been counted at all.]

Try and try as they did, the leaders of the day just couldn’t solve it by compromise. The reason it didn’t work is that a person is either a slave or he is not. He can’t be both at the same time. It took a civil war to overturn one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever handed down.

Abortion is slavery’s modern counterpart that does not lend itself to compromise. They tried to say that a baby was not a baby if it could not survive outside the mother. That eventually led to a baby not being a baby if half his head is still in the birth canal. An interesting sidebar here is the idea of a “mother” being called the mother of a non-entity or a blob of cells. How can a woman be the mother of something not of her own species? Is a man the “mother” of his cancer cells? The place where abortion and slavery meet is the idea that people can be property, and that’s exactly how the laws treat children, be they inside or outside the womb: the property of the mother, just like slaves were the property of their masters.

Just think. God creates life with his Word. What does man do with his word? Creates death by engaging in semantic gymnastics that deny the humanity of the pre-born as he did with slaves.

What really gets me is that the right of every advocacy group’s lobbying for redress of grievances is accepted as a given without question … except the same right of Christians, and especially Catholic Christians. That the OP question is even asked is an indication of how Catholics have been conned into self-censorship and thus a disgrace.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, and in this country we try to resolve every difference by compromise, but have failed to learn that some issues just don’t lend themselves to compromise. No one is happy when you divide the baby, least of all the baby. An example is slavery.

They tried to draw lines on a map saying where slavery was legal and where it is not, where a slave was a person and where he was not. It didn’t work. They even tried to declare that slaves were 3/5 of a person for representation purposes. [The irony here is that a slave would have been better off had he not been counted at all.]

Try and try as they did, the leaders of the day just couldn’t solve it by compromise. The reason it didn’t work is that a person is either a slave or he is not. He can’t be both at the same time. It took a civil war to overturn one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever handed down.

Abortion is slavery’s modern counterpart that does not lend itself to compromise. They tried to say that a baby was not a baby if it could not survive outside the mother. That eventually led to a baby not being a baby if half his head is still in the birth canal. An interesting sidebar here is the idea of a “mother” being called the mother of a non-entity or a blob of cells. How can a woman be the mother of something not of her own species? Is a man the “mother” of his cancer cells? The place where abortion and slavery meet is the idea that people can be property, and that’s exactly how the laws treat children, be they inside or outside the womb: the property of the mother, just like slaves were the property of their masters.

Just think. God creates life with his Word. What does man do with his word? Creates death by engaging in semantic gymnastics that deny the humanity of the pre-born as he did with slaves.

What really gets me is that the right of every advocacy group’s lobbying for redress of grievances is accepted as a given without question … except the same right of Christians, and especially Catholic Christians. That the OP question is even asked is an indication of how Catholics have been conned into self-censorship and thus a disgrace.

What you’re describing is the typical anti-Catholic American politics. What is worse is that some Catholic Americans follow the Anglican line of thinking that said that the Church had no right over the State. These Catholics challenge the Church’s right to tell the state when it’s wrong to do something and to tell citizens when to and when not to cooperate with the State.

There was a wonderful series on BBS-America, “The Tudors”. I loved the episodes where Henry is trying to get his annulment and finally ends up breaking communion with the Church. First of all, the writers were very accurate. Henry and his buddies had an agenda and the writers expose it.

Second, they show how Henry manipulates the teachings of Luther about Church-State relationship to oppress the Church. Luther did argue that the highest authority was the State. However, he never said that the State should persecute the Church. The political leaders took Luther’s error and ran with it to their convenience.

This is exactly what is happening in the USA. Just like England, it’s Catholics who are helping the State defy the Church. We have been so Anglicanized that we’re terrified, as was Henry, to submit to the authority of the Church. We’d rather sleep with the devil than dance with the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sedonaman]

What you’re describing is the typical anti-Catholic American politics. What is worse is that some Catholic Americans follow the Anglican line of thinking that said that the Church had no right over the State. These Catholics challenge the Church’s right to tell the state when it’s wrong and to tell citizens when and when not to cooperate with the State.
…
Just like England, it’s Catholics who are helping the State defy the Church. We have been so Anglicanized that we’re terrified, as was Henry, to submit to the authority of the Church. We’d rather sleep with the devil than dance with the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for the enlightenment; I’ve never had it explained that way, but now that you mention it, I have seen examples of it in my own parish.

One Sunday, the knights of Columbus had a petition you could sign to have a marriage initiative put on the state ballot. My wife and I signed it, and as we were turning to leave, one parishioner started to rant and rave like an angry bull about the church engaging in politics and that it should be taxed as a result. The Knight was caught off guard and didn’t know what to say, so I politely explained that it was a non-partisan issue, and collecting signatures was permissible by IRS regulations. He challenged me, so I quoted the regulation number. He called me a liar. He kept calling me a liar until I finally walked away, figuring there was no reason to continue. All the while this was going on, I kept wondering, “Whose side are you on, fella? The ACLU’s?”

Another incident involved a large banner that was hung in the parish center during the campaign of 2008. The banner proclaimed, “Vote for Life!” A couple of days later, it was gone, and I enquired as to what happened to it. “Someone got ‘offended that the church was telling us how to vote’ and so it was taken down.” My response was, “Hey, I’m offended because it was taken down, so put it back up.” Bet you can’t guess who won that one.

But the worst by far had to have been the parishioner, a new grandmother at that, who said she was voting for øbama because he will reduce the number of abortions by increasing welfare.

After Catholics put him in office, I concluded that we are our own worst enemies.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the enlightenment; I’ve never had it explained that way, but now that you mention it, I have seen examples of it in my own parish.

One Sunday, the knights of Columbus had a petition you could sign to have a marriage initiative put on the state ballot. My wife and I signed it, and as we were turning to leave, one parishioner started to rant and rave like an angry bull about the church engaging in politics and that it should be taxed as a result. The Knight was caught off guard and didn’t know what to say, so I politely explained that it was a non-partisan issue, and collecting signatures was permissible by IRS regulations. He challenged me, so I quoted the regulation number. He called me a liar. He kept calling me a liar until I finally walked away, figuring there was no reason to continue. All the while this was going on, I kept wondering, “Whose side are you on, fella? The ACLU’s?”

Another incident involved a large banner that was hung in the parish center during the campaign of 2008. The banner proclaimed, “Vote for Life!” A couple of days later, it was gone, and I enquired as to what happened to it. “Someone got ‘offended that the church was telling us how to vote’ and so it was taken down.” My response was, “Hey, I’m offended because it was taken down, so put it back up.” Bet you can’t guess who won that one.

But the worst by far had to have been the parishioner, a new grandmother at that, who said she was voting for øbama because he will reduce the number of abortions by increasing welfare.

After Catholics put him in office, I concluded that we are our own worst enemies.

I say “Anglicanized” with a due respect for the Anglicans. I don’t think that the English Christians ever expected things to go down the way they did. The name works, because it was the English Crown that first executed this grand idea that the Truth had to submit to the authority of the king. The fact is that Truth is its own authority and submissive to no man.

The part that we have to get into our heads is that Truth has the right to be proclaimed and the right to challenge and question even the secular state. The State has an obligation before God and its citizens to comply with Truth, even if the citizens protest. Bl. John Paul made it pattently clear that democracy exists so that Truth can be freely proclaimed. He was not the first pope to clarify this point. It seems that every few decades we need to be reminded of it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sedonaman]

… Truth has the right to be proclaimed and the right to challenge and question even the secular state. The State has an obligation before God and its citizens to comply with Truth, even if the citizens protest. Bl. John Paul made it pattently clear that democracy exists so that Truth can be freely proclaimed. He was not the first pope to clarify this point. It seems that every few decades we need to be reminded of it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Truth vs “political correctness”

What is “political correctness”?

Political correctness is government censorship.

Censorship, or government suppression of individual speech, has taken many forms over the years. In times past, government censors banned certain books and movies. Today, the new form of censorship is popularly known as “political correctness.”

Traditional morality of a person used to be determined by his actions. Now it is judged by the political causes he supports. Political correctness is a secular dogma that defines as morally wrong any opposition to the myriad of politically “in” causes of the day. Political correctness often asserts itself in school systems in active discouragement of, or open hostility to, views promoted by the schools on these and other controversial issues. This is clearly the antithesis of the “freedom of speech” protected by the First Amendment and is diametrically opposed to the pursuit of truth. Those in high positions, be they government or industry, are coerced into supporting causes they wouldn’t absent the coercion. Thus, they are prohibited from saying certain things.

Political correctness is not a new phenomenon. Those familiar with Hans Christian Anderson’s The Emperor’s New Clothes will recognize it as the theme of the story.

Political correctness is self-censorship.

Since public schools were established to promote knowledge and seek truth and have authority behind them, anyone who disagrees with them is naturally looked upon as unenlightened, uneducated, and an outcast – a defier of authority – especially when the subject involves the feelings of others. Who wants that stigma? No one, so political correctness with the educational system behind it becomes a particularly insidious form of censorship because it forces the individual to pretend he doesn’t know something he that he really does, namely that the ideology being promoted is not true.

So what is political correctness? A crusade to ignorance characterized by a rejection of Truth that conflicts with ideology.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t know if anyone has posted this as an answer to the OP question, so here it is:The Church’s obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of society is a requirement of our faith, a part of the mission given to us by Jesus Christ. Faith helps us see more clearly the truth about human life and dignity that we also understand through human reason. As people of both faith and reason, Catholics are called to bring truth to political life and to practice Christ’s commandment to “love one another” (Jn 13:34). According to Pope Benedict XVI, “charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and therefore also their political activity, lived as ‘social charity’” (Deus Caritas Est, no. 29).

The United States Constitution protects the right of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination. Civil law should recognize and protect the Church’s right and responsibility to participate in society without abandoning our central moral convictions. Our nation’s tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions into public life. The Catholic community brings to the political dialogue a consistent moral framework and broad experience serving those in need.

In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation. As Catholics, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. In today’s environment, Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party and few candidates fully share our comprehensive commitment to human life and dignity. Catholic lay women and men need to act on the Church’s moral principles and become more involved: running for office, working within political parties, and communicating concerns to elected officials. Even those who cannot vote should raise their voices on matters that affect their lives and the common good.

The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007
usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf

 

[JReducation]

Truth vs “political correctness”

What is “political correctness”?

Political correctness is government censorship.

The Catholic Church believes in political correctness and employs it all the time. If we want to see it practiced correctly, all we have to do is listen to the popes and observe how they interact with the world and world leaders.

Let’s begin by saying that political correctness is not hiding one’s head in the sand to avoid seeing the truth. That’s just abdicating one’s responsibility to society.

What is political correctness? It is sensitivity in the way we say things. Pope Benedict XVI says it best. It is truth with charity. One need not offend to say the truth.

There are many amateur evangelists, even on these fora, which do just that. That’s what makes them amateurs. A good evangelist is not offensive.

One of the most wonderful examples of this was St. Anthony of Padua. He was called the Hammer of the Heretics. However, St. Anthony, being an obedient son of St. Francis, complied with his spiritual father. He avoided all conflicts and confrontations with the heretics. He spoke about them with great love. He wanted nothing but the good for them, as did his holy father.

He was very good at what he did. So good, that he converted thousands. Let’s use one simple example. If Brother Anthony arrived in a town where a heretic was teaching that the sacraments were unnecessary for salvation, he would preach on the mercy and love of God and how God in his mercy and love makes himself a prisoner in the sacraments for our sake. He would support his statement with scripture and sacred tradition. However, he never said “The guy over there is talking nonsense” or “The guy over there is a heretic who going to burn in hell.” He knew that Francis would have his head if he did. Besides the respect that he had for his holy father, he had class and dignity. He was an intelligent man. He knew that he could pull error apart without deliberately hurting the other person. He often preached to the clergy, bishops and the aristocracy about the error of their ways. He did two things and avoided another. He spoke about sin and virtue. If he needed to say something to someone, he did so privately. He avoided calling attention to individual sinners.

Were there people who were offended by what Anthony said? Probably many of the heretics were disgusted by what he said. But not a single one of them could claim that he had ever said an unkind word to them or about them.

That is the proper way to be politically correct. Truth gets its day in court, but one can do so without deliberately offending or belittling. As St. Bonaventure once said, the end is to proclaim truth, not to deny error. Christ did not send us out to fight error, but to proclaim the Good News. Error will collapse when truth is proclaimed and embraced.

Bonaventure loved yesterday’s Gospel, because Christ sends the disciples to make believers of all men, not enemies. Bonaventure would remind the friars of this before they went out to preach.

I say that if someone is offended, let it be because he chooses to be offended, not because you were unkind and lacking tact.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I don’t know if anyone has posted this as an answer to the OP question, so here it is:The Church’s obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of society is a requirement of our faith, a part of the mission given to us by Jesus Christ. Faith helps us see more clearly the truth about human life and dignity that we also understand through human reason. As people of both faith and reason, Catholics are called to bring truth to political life and to practice Christ’s commandment to “love one another” (Jn 13:34). According to Pope Benedict XVI, “charity must animate the entire lives of the lay faithful and therefore also their political activity, lived as ‘social charity’” (Deus Caritas Est, no. 29).

The United States Constitution protects the right of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination. Civil law should recognize and protect the Church’s right and responsibility to participate in society without abandoning our central moral convictions. Our nation’s tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions into public life. The Catholic community brings to the political dialogue a consistent moral framework and broad experience serving those in need.

In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation. As Catholics, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. In today’s environment, Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party and few candidates fully share our comprehensive commitment to human life and dignity. Catholic lay women and men need to act on the Church’s moral principles and become more involved: running for office, working within political parties, and communicating concerns to elected officials. Even those who cannot vote should raise their voices on matters that affect their lives and the common good.

The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007
usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf

I don’t believe the document has been offered in this thread. Even if it had, thanks for making it visible again. Many times Catholics forget their duty in acting in accordance with the tenets of the faith, or worse, they set their duty aside, in which case, they need to be reminded to be faithful citizens.
,

 

[sedonaman]

The Catholic Church believes in political correctness and employs it all the time. If we want to see it practiced correctly, all we have to do is listen to the popes and observe how they interact with the world and world leaders.

Let’s begin by saying that political correctness is not hiding one’s head in the sand to avoid seeing the truth. That’s just abdicating one’s responsibility to society.

What is political correctness? It is sensitivity in the way we say things. Pope Benedict XVI says it best. It is truth with charity. One need not offend to say the truth.

There are many amateur evangelists, even on these fora, which do just that. That’s what makes them amateurs. A good evangelist is not offensive.

One of the most wonderful examples of this was St. Anthony of Padua. He was called the Hammer of the Heretics. However, St. Anthony, being an obedient son of St. Francis, complied with his spiritual father. He avoided all conflicts and confrontations with the heretics. He spoke about them with great love. He wanted nothing but the good for them, as did his holy father.

…
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

To coin a phrase, that is “religious correctness”, not “political correctness” as I see it.

St. Anthony, et al did not agree with the heretics just to avoid confrontation or offending them. I’m talking about patronizing a political ideology you know is wrong so as not to be ostracized.

 

[JReducation]

To coin a phrase, that is “religious correctness”, not “political correctness” as I see it.

St. Anthony, et al did not agree with the heretics just to avoid confrontation or offending them. I’m talking about patronizing a political ideology you know is wrong so as not to be ostracized.

We can call it whatever, but I think that we both agree with the principle. One does not have to abdicate responsibility to be polite and tactful, nor does one have to deliberately offend in order to proclaim the truth.

I think that the fear that so many people have is fear of offending. People need to understand that no one is being asked to offend anyone… We’re being asked to be responsible citizens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Contarini]

Recently in Brazil same-sex unions have been legalised despite condemnation from the Catholic Church -

bbc.co.uk/news/world-13304442

This thread is not a news thread, it is only using the above story as an example.

While reading the comments, I notice one person had posted this below the story -

“Why is the Catholic Church trying to interfere with secular unions? Do they think non-Catholics have a similar right to interfere with Catholic sacraments?”

that objection doesn’t make sense at all. If the UCC or the Unitarians (or my own Episcopal Church) chooses to celebrate same-sex marriage as a sacrament, most Catholics would agree that they/we have a right to do so.

the real question is what we mean by “secular.” The poster is assuming that “secular” is a kind of religious community against which religious communities such as the Catholic Church stand. I don’t think the poster really wants to follow through the implications of this.

Rather, “secular” space is the space we all share. So all of us have the right to have a voice in how that space should be administered.

Of course, in the English and Scottish context (Wales and Northern Ireland confuse me) there are in fact state churches, so these are not technically “secular” countries. I know how secular Britain is in practice, but de iure England and Scotland are both still Christian countries, right?

Edwin

 

[smilesatori]

Well laws are like a Cafeteria Tray…Catholic chose and pick what laws
fit them…Catholics are anti-gay, they are anti-abortion so they oppose
any laws that would give rights to pro abortion people or to gay people…
that I understand but I do not agree with, however on the other
side people that molest children get 25 years in prison as that
is a crime…so how do Catholic Priest get off…Church does not
report these crimes and merely call them a scandal.
Cardinal Law assisted in so many children being molested under
his roof…but the laws never applied to him or his minions.
So, Catholics just pick and chose what laws interest them.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t know if anyone has addressed this angle yet, but consider the wording, “What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?” of the OP question. It seems to presume that Catholics “interfere” with secular laws when we “participate in shaping the moral character of society, bring truth to political life, and bring our convictions into public life.” [1] Those opposed to Catholics doing this are really saying they don’t want Catholics to participate at all, or at least to “leave their religion at the door of the voting place.” There are people who actively lobby for the most vile evils around, but no one says they have to stop lobbying or leave their attitudes at the door of the voting place. Why is this expected of Catholics and no one else?

[1] The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007
usccb.org/bishops/FCBullInsert.pdf

 

[PJM]

=LemonAndLime;7841215]Recently in Brazil same-sex unions have been legalised despite condemnation from the Catholic Church -

“Why is the Catholic Church trying to interfere with secular unions? Do they think non-Catholics have a similar right to interfere with Catholic sacraments?”

No logic here! One is a Moral imperative, while the other is a strange rationalazation.

What is everyone’s opinion on this? If we believe we have a right to campaign against secular laws including civil partnerships, does that mean it is okay for non-Catholics to start telling us how to apply our religious rules e.g. the Catechism?

OF COURSE NOT. Moral law is a set of conditions imposed on ALL; by an ALL-Might Creator God.

Isa.29: 16 "You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”? [meaning ABSOLUTE TIGHTS OVER IT?]

**Isa.64: 8 “**Yet, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; we are all the work of thy hand.”

Jer.18: 4 "And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel”

Let’s say that there was a group of Catholics campaigning for same-sex marriage to be outlawed. Would it then be fair for a group of non-Catholics to campaign for Catholics to be forced to allow same-sex marriages?

To the Owner / Creator go ALL OF THE RIGHTS of governance. Are you/ they GREATER, know more or know better than God Himself. SOUNDS SILLY; BUT that is the precise position taken by such foolishness.

Or -Let’s say Catholics successfully managed to campaign for same-sex marriage to be made illegal, would it then be fair if non-Catholics successfully managed to campaign for Catholic Churches to be forced to marry any heterosexual couple, whether they are Catholic or not? If not, why not?

God has never been open to a democracy nor has HIS CC! WHY? Because foolish, prideful, knowmiew and know better than God Himself would send the worls to HELL even faster tha is is currently aimed.

Because "One can HAS NEVER meant “one should.”

Of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVING AND CREATED THINGS ONLY HUMANITY can love: therefore those attributes of Mind, Intellect, FREEWILL are given to us to decide to Love god in return and merit heaven AND / OR decide to love Satan instead of God and merit Eternal hell! GOD leaves it up to us to choose

After all, we are interfering in the “secular” world by campaigning against a law, so why can’t secular people interfere in our religious world by campaigning against our “rules”?

John.1: 10 “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not”.

1Cor.3: 19 "For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”

Eph.2: [2 “in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.
12 **remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world”.

** Phil.2: 15 **“that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,”

2Pet.1: 4 “by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.”

**2Pet.2: 20 **“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first”.

***aT IT ROOT THEIR ARE only TWO CHOICES. wHI IS IN CHARGE? YOU OR GOD? THE RESPONSIBILITY CANNOT BE SHARED…SO FRIEND; WHO DO YOU WANT TO BE IN CHARGE ***

God Bless,
Pat

 

[sedonaman]

As I posted above. Do you think that if Catholics have a right to an (name removed by moderator)ut in civil laws, do you believe it would be fair for non-Catholics to have an (name removed by moderator)ut on Catholic rules?

This is not the right comparison question. As someone pointed out, civil law governs everybody whereas Canon Law governs only Catholics. It should be, “If Catholics have a right to an (name removed by moderator)ut in civil laws, do you believe it would be fair for non-Catholics to have an (name removed by moderator)ut to civil law?” IOW, if Catholics don’t have a right to an (name removed by moderator)ut in civil laws, neither should non-Catholics. Put another way, everyone should have a right to “interfere” with secular law. The Declaration of Independence says, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” I does not say, “… consent of the governed, except Catholics.”

So I don’t know why the OP question is even asked.

 

[smilesatori]

The Catholic Church is always 500 years behind the times so most of the
times they will be incorrect…I think it was in 1990 that The Pope decided
that the Planets revolved around the sun. Before that Catholic Teachings was that the Earth was the center of the universe
Galileo was imprisonned for stating simple scientific facts…so the Church is
not exactly a truth seeker.

 

[Sullibe]

The question is, is a pro-life, against same-sex marriage, against contraception, against euthanasia (name the controversy), atheist “interfering” with secular laws when they vote as such a promote laws as such. (I realize the highly unlikely probability that he or she exists, but the possibility, however remote, is still there)

The problem is that people who believe that Catholics should stay out of secular laws, are people who believe that Catholics are only trying to incorporate Catholic law in a secular circle. It never once occurs to them that the Catholics fighting to ban abortion actually believe that abortion is evil and not simply because the Church says so. Catholics fighting against same-sex marriage, believe that this is an evil and will ultimately undermine society, and not simply because the Church says so.
In other words, Catholics have every right to participate and “interfere” in secular laws, because, just like everyone else, they’re fighting for what** they **believe is right and Holy, not because the Church says that it is.

I am pro-life and against same-sex marriage and against contraception. Not because the Catholic Church tells me I’m supposed to be, but rather I’m Catholic because the Church speaks the truth about these issues (among so many others).

I don’t believe these things because I’m Catholic - I’m Catholic because I believe these things, among other truths the Church teaches.

Sorry if I’ve just repeated someone else, I probably should have looked through the comments.