We Finally Have hope and change ! <3

[superblue]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/06/26/white-house-rainbow-gay-marriage/29374471/

 

Man the socialist party and obama are so so amesome,, what is the new prayer to obama and his just so enlightenedness for doing something so amesome.

lol screaming ? and moaning ?

 

 

Socialism is not with in an of itself evil / it is just a constant failure for society in general, everyone loses except those at the top, less now you wave the red,white, and blue with those views.

but hey, keep patting yourselves on the back for being so " progressive " while things like this are done to the White House, which once use to be taken seriously and is now just a joke. Keep voting for the party that supports abortions and promotes race baiting all under the guise of caring and peace and love and promising a utopia and gobbling up low information voters day and night. 

 

peace out nerds.

[Peace]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/06/26/white-house-rainbow-gay-marriage/29374471/

 

Man the socialist party and obama are so so amesome,, what is the new prayer to obama and his just so enlightenedness for doing something so amesome.

lol screaming ? and moaning ?

 

 

Socialism is not with in an of itself evil / it is just a constant failure for society in general, everyone loses except those at the top, less now you wave the red,white, and blue with those views.

but hey, keep patting yourselves on the back for being so " progressive " while things like this are done to the White House, which once use to be taken seriously and is now just a joke. Keep voting for the party that supports abortions and promotes race baiting all under the guise of caring and peace and love and promising a utopia and gobbling up low information voters day and night. 

 

peace out nerds.

To be quite honest this seems rather incoherent to me. It seems like more of a rant than anything, and I am not quite sure what point it is that you are trying to make overall.

Keep in mind that the Church is not a uniquely American institution. She exists in most countries throughout the world. And therefore an attempt to fit Her within one's own brand of conservative (or liberal) American politics is not something that is likely to be successful.

As for people patting themselves on the back for being progressive - I do not know who you are referring to. But to clarify - I do not support the legalization of gay marriage. I do not support the legalization of abortion or euthanasia. I do support some policies that are more typically advocated by the Democrats, such as restriction of the death penalty, universal health care, and certain welfare programs such as food stamps (SNAP). Those are policy positions that are all supported by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I have not decided who I will vote for in the next presidential election, but as it is now John Kasich and Jeb Bush are the candidates that I find the most appealing. But again, for me it is not about being Democrat or Republican. It is about trying to be consistent with the Catholic Church.

I think we have to be careful to identify as Catholics first and foremost, and align our politics such that it is consistent with what the Church teaches. In America many people are guilty of the opposite - identifying first as a Democrat or a Republican, and then attempting to use our Church as a means to further our politics.

Peace to you as well.

[Yaatee]

Good show, Peace.

[Socrates]

*Some* of the policies supported by the Democrats are evil, stupid, and destructive. Other policies supported by the Democrats are constructive and supported by the Church. The same can be said of the policies of the Republicans.

I agree with you that there are many things that should be changed, but as we discussed in another thread, the Church does not appear to support the sort of "every man for himself" type of government that you appear to desire.

Neither does the Church support a massive, centralized all-encompassing, ever-growing welfare/entitlement state, which borrows and spends the country into bankruptcy - which is the government we actually now have.  (And, just for the record, I don't agree with much of the politics of the USCCB, which certainly does not have infallible political judgment.)

Both parties are moving in the wrong direction, at least at the national "leadership" level, and I certainly wouldn't regard the ideal Christian society as being some sort of compromise between current Democrat and Republican policies (much as the heavily-politicized USCCB might give that impression).

[Peace]

And, just for the record, I don't agree with much of the politics of the USCCB, which certainly does not have infallible political judgment.

It seems that many politically conservative Catholics only follow the Church on issues that they are dogmatically required to. On issues that they are not dogmatically required to follow, they do not seem to respect the Church's advice or guidance much at all. It seems to be a similar attitude as the so-called liberal "Cafeteria Catholics". They do not really seem to have given their whole heart to the Church. They seem to pick and choose what they want to follow. The only difference between them and the liberals is that some of the things the liberals reject are doctrine.

But that is my impression. I do not know how they view things or where there hearts are. Only God knows that, of course.

I do not know if any of the above would apply to you, but to the extent that it does, does it not make your relationship with the Church more of like a master/servant relationship than a father/son relationship?  The attitude of some seems to be "I do what I am required to do. Beyond that, I do what I want to do, or I do what I believe is best." It seems like some rejoice in their freedom to disagree with the Church.

But shouldn't one's general attitude towards the Church be more like the attitude towards loving parents? You know that She has been around a whole lot longer than you have. You know that She is wiser than you are. You know that She has your best interest in mind. So why not look to Her for guidance and follow Her advice, even in the areas where you are not strictly required to, such as politics?

[Papist]

It seems that many politically conservative Catholics only follow the Church on issues that they are dogmatically required to. On issues that they are not dogmatically required to follow, they do not seem to respect the Church's advice or guidance much at all. It seems to be a similar attitude as the so-called liberal "Cafeteria Catholics". They do not really seem to have given their whole heart to the Church. They seem to pick and choose what they want to follow. The only difference between them and the liberals is that some of the things the liberals reject are doctrine.

But that is my impression. I do not know how they view things or where there hearts are. Only God knows that, of course.

I do not know if any of the above would apply to you, but to the extent that it does, does it not make your relationship with the Church more of like a master/servant relationship than a father/son relationship?  The attitude of some seems to be "I do what I am required to do. Beyond that, I do what I want to do, or I do what I believe is best." It seems like some rejoice in their freedom to disagree with the Church.

But shouldn't one's general attitude towards the Church be more like the attitude towards loving parents? You know that She has been around a whole lot longer than you have. You know that She is wiser than you are. You know that She has your best interest in mind. So why not look to Her for guidance and follow Her advice, even in the areas where you are not strictly required to, such as politics?

"master/servant relationship than a father/son relationship"  I see it as both/and not either/or. 

Yes. I should welcome my parents words of wisdom....but I still need to think critically 

Where, to whom we go to when there are opposing opinions among the Bishops, in regard to politics?  

Edited June 30, 2015 by Papist

[superblue]

 

Thank goodness the socialist party ( democrats ) never tried to brain wash innocent children into thinking Obama was amesome

 

It isn't even remotely possible that this type of indoctrination and brain washing was ever used before...

and we all know how holy obama is and how noble and great the socialist party he is under is,,

 

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/youthunderfascism/home

 

[Yaatee]

rant. rant. rant rant rant.

[superblue]

First Obama attacks a regular citizen  ( Joe the Plumber to discredit him ) * Classy Move 

Then we get Cash For Clunkers

ObamaCare ( which had to be approved in order to know what was in it )

The brilliantly timed Occupy Wall Street

Fast and Furious

Bengazi

Siding with Iran on Nuclear talks

Snubbing Israel 

Calls to destroy the Second Amendment

Successfully Destroyed under a slated judicial court what Marriage stands for

Not responding at all to help those who where invaded by Russia in the UK

Doing Nothing to stop ISIS from spreading like they have ( mean while women and children are being raped,killed, and sold as sex slaves )

Works tirelessly to weaken the US Military

The list is never ending

In the mean time the republicants control the Congress and refuse to stop obama ( which isn't new in the game )  Socialists now control the Democrat party

and 

 

 

 

[Papist]

First Obama attacks a regular citizen  ( Joe the Plumber to discredit him ) * Classy Move 

Then we get Cash For Clunkers

ObamaCare ( which had to be approved in order to know what was in it )

The brilliantly timed Occupy Wall Street

Fast and Furious

Bengazi

Siding with Iran on Nuclear talks

Snubbing Israel 

Calls to destroy the Second Amendment

Successfully Destroyed under a slated judicial court what Marriage stands for

Not responding at all to help those who where invaded by Russia in the UK

Doing Nothing to stop ISIS from spreading like they have ( mean while women and children are being raped,killed, and sold as sex slaves )

Works tirelessly to weaken the US Military

The list is never ending

In the mean time the republicants control the Congress and refuse to stop obama ( which isn't new in the game )  Socialists now control the Democrat party

and 

 

 

 

Yeah, but his handicap has dropped 7 strokes since taking Office.

[Socrates]

It seems that many politically conservative Catholics only follow the Church on issues that they are dogmatically required to. On issues that they are not dogmatically required to follow, they do not seem to respect the Church's advice or guidance much at all. It seems to be a similar attitude as the so-called liberal "Cafeteria Catholics". They do not really seem to have given their whole heart to the Church. They seem to pick and choose what they want to follow. The only difference between them and the liberals is that some of the things the liberals reject are doctrine.

But that is my impression. I do not know how they view things or where there hearts are. Only God knows that, of course.

I do not know if any of the above would apply to you, but to the extent that it does, does it not make your relationship with the Church more of like a master/servant relationship than a father/son relationship?  The attitude of some seems to be "I do what I am required to do. Beyond that, I do what I want to do, or I do what I believe is best." It seems like some rejoice in their freedom to disagree with the Church.

But shouldn't one's general attitude towards the Church be more like the attitude towards loving parents? You know that She has been around a whole lot longer than you have. You know that She is wiser than you are. You know that She has your best interest in mind. So why not look to Her for guidance and follow Her advice, even in the areas where you are not strictly required to, such as politics.

 

The only difference between them and the liberals is that some of the things the liberals reject are doctrine.

 

 

That's not an insignificant difference.  We are bound under pain of heresy to believe and follow Catholic doctrine on matters of faith and morals.

We are certainly not bound to agree with the particular political or economic opinions of groups such as the USCCB.

Let's also not confuse the Magisterium of the universal Church with the USCCB and similar bodies.  The USCCB is simply a committee of persons who have no more special wisdom in political matters than you, me, or anybody else.  (Back in '04, a friend of mine visited a USCCB office and said the place was covered with Kerry/Gore stickers.  Let's not be so naive as to think those folks are all fonts of non-partisan, unbiased divine wisdom.)

Respect for the Church and churchmen does not mean we are to suspend critical thinking and prudential judgment on political matters, just as respect for my parents doesn't mean that I can't disagree with them on politics.

Also, my social views regarding charity and government are far from your caricature of "every man for himself," but I actually believe we need more active voluntary charity and giving at the personal, church, and community level, and more building of genuine family and community, instead of delegating more and more to federal government bureaucracies.  You may want to re-read John Paul II's critique of the "social assistance state" in Centesimus Annus, before you dismiss my concerns as somehow heretical or un-Catholic.

And I hate to keep bringing this up, but the "parental" prudential wisdom of much of the U.S. bishops in dealing with priestly sex abuse, was cover-up, sweep under the rug, and shuffle around, and we see how beautifully that all worked out.  Why should we trust their prudential judgment on everything else?

[Peace]

That's not an insignificant difference.  We are bound under pain of heresy to believe and follow Catholic doctrine on matters of faith and morals.

We are certainly not bound to agree with the particular political or economic opinions of groups such as the USCCB.

I agree that the difference is significant. But I do not think that the freedom to disagree with the Church on various matters would justify an attitude that seems to say "I only have to believe what was defined in the Council of Trent. I could care less what the Church has to say concerning other matters because I am not required under pain of sin to believe it." I am not asserting that this is your attitude, by the way - but I do see it among some people. For example, some folks were complaining about Pope Francis's recent encyclical on the environment before a single word of it had even been released. The attitude seemed to be "whatever he has to say about it, I do not care, because I know just as much about the environment as Pope Francis does."

Let's also not confuse the Magisterium of the universal Church with the USCCB and similar bodies.  The USCCB is simply a committee of persons who have no more special wisdom in political matters than you, me, or anybody else.  (Back in '04, a friend of mine visited a USCCB office and said the place was covered with Kerry/Gore stickers.  Let's not be so naive as to think those folks are all fonts of non-partisan, unbiased divine wisdom.)

Respect for the Church and churchmen does not mean we are to suspend critical thinking and prudential judgment on political matters, just as respect for my parents doesn't mean that I can't disagree with them on politics.

Well - the Church does have many economists and scientists among Her ranks (I think modern economics can be traced by the the School of Salamanca). But for the sake of argument I will agree with you that the Magisterium (or individual groups of Bishops) may not have any more special wisdom in political or economic matters than you or me.

The Church (or individual groups of Bishops) has better wisdom than you or me concerning whether our political/social/economic choices are consistent with our ethical obligations as Christians. These are ordained men who have spent a good chunk of their lives studying our ethical obligations as Christians, and they also have the historical/institutional knowledge of the Church at their disposal. If one looks at a choice as matter of pure economics or pure politics, "Choice A" may be a better choice than "Choice B". If one looks at the choice in that manner then "my guess is just as good as the Church's" - and one need not consider Her view on the matter at all. If one is looking at the choice as one should - would Choice A or Choice B be more consistent with God's will, then I think what the Church has to say concerning the choice becomes extremely relevant. "Choice A" may be the best economic choice but it is not necessarily the choice that is most consistent with the Christian faith. This is where we can and should look to the Church for guidance.

But I agree with you that we should not suspend critical thinking. Some of our disagreements with the Church may help Her better understand the ethical implications of what She advocates.

Also, my social views regarding charity and government are far from your caricature of "every man for himself," but I actually believe we need more active voluntary charity and giving at the personal, church, and community level, and more building of genuine family and community, instead of delegating more and more to federal government bureaucracies.  You may want to re-read John Paul II's critique of the "social assistance state" in Centesimus Annus, before you dismiss my concerns as somehow heretical or un-Catholic.

Again - the government need not redistribute wealth under the banner of charity. It is a matter of justice that our excess wealth should be given to poor people. I also agree with the principle of subsidiarity - very much so. But I think what you have advocated goes farther than what the Church has advocated. The principle of subsidiarity does not mean that the government should be limited to providing national defense and infrastructure. I do not know whether such a position would be un-Catholic, but I do not think that it is something that the Church has advocated, nor do I see any good reason for advocating such a position (either as a matter of ethics or pure economics).

And I hate to keep bringing this up, but the "parental" prudential wisdom of much of the U.S. bishops in dealing with priestly sex abuse, was cover-up, sweep under the rug, and shuffle around, and we see how beautifully that all worked out.  Why should we trust their prudential judgment on everything else?

 I think the Church may have done worse than that in Her history. But I cannot think of anywhere else that would be a better place to start if we are seeking guidance on how to better live out our every day lives as Christians. I don't think that we necessarily have to agree lock-and-step with everything our Bishops say, but I would start with them and give them the benefit of the doubt unless I had strong evidence to believe that their conclusions were wrong (as a matter of Christian ethics first and foremost, and as a matter of politics/economics second). Perhaps you have considered their reasons and have strong evidence that you believe proves that the positions that they have taken are wrong. That would be fine by me (although I might disagree with you concerning the strength of the evidence).

[Socrates]

 

I agree that the difference is significant. But I do not think that the freedom to disagree with the Church on various matters would justify an attitude that seems to say "I only have to believe what was defined in the Council of Trent. I could care less what the Church has to say concerning other matters because I am not required under pain of sin to believe it." I am not asserting that this is your attitude, by the way - but I do see it among some people. For example, some folks were complaining about Pope Francis's recent encyclical on the environment before a single word of it had even been released. The attitude seemed to be "whatever he has to say about it, I do not care, because I know just as much about the environment as Pope Francis does."

Well - the Church does have many economists and scientists among Her ranks (I think modern economics can be traced by the the School of Salamanca). But for the sake of argument I will agree with you that the Magisterium (or individual groups of Bishops) may not have any more special wisdom in political or economic matters than you or me.

The Church (or individual groups of Bishops) has better wisdom than you or me concerning whether our political/social/economic choices are consistent with our ethical obligations as Christians. These are ordained men who have spent a good chunk of their lives studying our ethical obligations as Christians, and they also have the historical/institutional knowledge of the Church at their disposal. If one looks at a choice as matter of pure economics or pure politics, "Choice A" may be a better choice than "Choice B". If one looks at the choice in that manner then "my guess is just as good as the Church's" - and one need not consider Her view on the matter at all. If one is looking at the choice as one should - would Choice A or Choice B be more consistent with God's will, then I think what the Church has to say concerning the choice becomes extremely relevant. "Choice A" may be the best economic choice but it is not necessarily the choice that is most consistent with the Christian faith. This is where we can and should look to the Church for guidance.

But I agree with you that we should not suspend critical thinking. Some of our disagreements with the Church may help Her better understand the ethical implications of what She advocates.

Again - the government need not redistribute wealth under the banner of charity. It is a matter of justice that our excess wealth should be given to poor people. I also agree with the principle of subsidiarity - very much so. But I think what you have advocated goes farther than what the Church has advocated. The principle of subsidiarity does not mean that the government should be limited to providing national defense and infrastructure. I do not know whether such a position would be un-Catholic, but I do not think that it is something that the Church has advocated, nor do I see any good reason for advocating such a position (either as a matter of ethics or pure economics).

 I think the Church may have done worse than that in Her history. But I cannot think of anywhere else that would be a better place to start if we are seeking guidance on how to better live out our every day lives as Christians. I don't think that we necessarily have to agree lock-and-step with everything our Bishops say, but I would start with them and give them the benefit of the doubt unless I had strong evidence to believe that their conclusions were wrong (as a matter of Christian ethics first and foremost, and as a matter of politics/economics second). Perhaps you have considered their reasons and have strong evidence that you believe proves that the positions that they have taken are wrong. That would be fine by me (although I might disagree with you concerning the strength of the evidence).

I still stand with what I said, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time in a reply, as at this point, it will probably just be endless circular debate, but I'll just reiterate a few basic points.

1) We shouldn't confuse any particular statement or endorsement from the USCCB as "the Teaching of the Church."  It simply doesn't have that level of authority.

2) Most of the real disagreements are not moral or ethical, but matters of prudential judgment or practical science.  For instance, everyone agrees that people should help the poor and those in need, though there can be very real and legitimate disagreements over whether specific government policies actually help or hurt the poor and needy in the long run.  Being on a USCCB council or such doesn't automatically put you on the right side of such debates.

I'm not saying everything the USCCB puts out is absolutely wrong either, but such things shouldn't be blindly followed as having ultimate authority. and should be judged critically on a case-by-case basis.

[Socrates]

 (Back in '04, a friend of mine visited a USCCB office and said the place was covered with Kerry/Gore stickers. . .

Should read: "Kerry/Edwards stickers."  

In time, they all seem to run together.

[Peace]

1) We shouldn't confuse any particular statement or endorsement from the USCCB as "the Teaching of the Church."  It simply doesn't have that level of authority.

I believe that I already indicated that you are not bound to follow them. But if you believe in the idea of subsidiarity - then I do not see why that would not apply here as well. We should look to our local pastor and our local bishops for guidance.

2) Most of the real disagreements are not moral or ethical, but matters of prudential judgment or practical science.  For instance, everyone agrees that people should help the poor and those in need, though there can be very real and legitimate disagreements over whether specific government policies actually help or hurt the poor and needy in the long run.  Being on a USCCB council or such doesn't automatically put you on the right side of such debates.

I think that is fine if one is sincere. It seems to me that some conservatives sincerely believe that what they advocate is best for the poor, and that is the primary motivation for what they advocate. That is cool by me. For some others, I get a vibe that they value their own freedom to do as they please with their property more than they care about the poor, and the fact that the Church does not have a formal "rule" that they must follow is used as an excuse to ignore Her and to justify their own preferences. That would not be cool by me. But I guess whichever category one falls into, only God can be the true judge of that.

I'm not saying everything the USCCB puts out is absolutely wrong either, but such things shouldn't be blindly followed as having ultimate authority. and should be judged critically on a case-by-case basis.

Fair enough. I do not believe in blind following either. But I would look to my bishop for guidance and give what he has to say serious consideration before disagreeing. Just as one might with one's parents.