Am I the only person who actually DISAGREES with Father Altman's video?

[phatcatholic]

I strongly disagree w/ Fr. Altman's video. I outline my reasons here: https://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2020/09/response-to-fr-james-altmans-video-you.html

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

That’s sexist AND specist!

Thank you for the compliment.

[cutenickname]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Whoa. Cat fight. Meow!

I'm a whole dude.

But we all have a little hissing demon in us.

[Peace]

5 hours ago, cutenickname said:

I'm a whole dude.

But we all have a little hissing demon in us.

My bad homie. I thought you was female.

[cutenickname]

4 minutes ago, Peace said:

My bad homie. I thought you was female.

It's aight. I'm thicc.

[Ice_nine]

I ain't mad, but I wasn't the one who brought up sexuality in  my declaration of beliefs, that was you sir.

 

[cutenickname]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

I ain't mad, but I wasn't the one who brought up sexuality in  my declaration of beliefs, that was you sir.

 

I was giving an explanation for why I left the Catholic Church. I named a number of disagreements with core teachings of the Church: homosexuality, contraception, gender, ordination of women, and the magisterial understanding of infallibility.

When you decided to focus on the comment on homosexuality it made you seem like a snarky culture warrior. If that is what you were up to, then I have made no dishonorable or unfair criticism. If that is not what you were up to, I apologize.

Either way, you may have the last word.

 

[fides' Jack]

On 9/28/2020 at 2:17 PM, cutenickname said:

Interestingly, then as now, there was a plethora of Christian sects that taught marrying black people was a sin

There are not currently a plethora of Christian sects that teach marrying black people is a sin.

You might be able to find a couple, such as the Westboro Baptists; I would argue even those couple you might find are not Christian.

[Ice_nine]

11 hours ago, cutenickname said:

I was giving an explanation for why I left the Catholic Church. I named a number of disagreements with core teachings of the Church: homosexuality, contraception, gender, ordination of women, and the magisterial understanding of infallibility.

When you decided to focus on the comment on homosexuality it made you seem like a snarky culture warrior. If that is what you were up to, then I have made no dishonorable or unfair criticism. If that is not what you were up to, I apologize.

Either way, you may have the last word.

 

meh

[Anomaly]

On 9/29/2020 at 10:11 AM, phatcatholic said:

I strongly disagree w/ Fr. Altman's video. I outline my reasons here: https://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2020/09/response-to-fr-james-altmans-video-you.html

Back on topic.

No parsing, but what exactly did Ratzinger say?   From what I’ve read, a person could vote for one of two pro abortion politicians if they believed one was less pro abortion than the other.   Hence, you could vote for one of the pro abortion Democrats with a clear conscience.  

However, there is a heavy burden to evaluate and a high threshold for greater good to vote for a pro-abortion candidate over an anti-abortion candidate.   Especially considering their stated platforms and agendas for the two premier political parties in a national election. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Anomaly

[phatcatholic]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

No parsing, but what exactly did Ratzinger say?   From what I’ve read, a person could vote for one of two pro abortion politicians if they believed one was less pro abortion than the other.   Hence, you could vote for one of the pro abortion Democrats with a clear conscience.  

However, there is a heavy burden to evaluate and a high threshold for greater good to vote for a pro-abortion candidate over an anti-abortion candidate.   Especially considering their stated platforms and agendas for the two premier political parties in a national election. 

Here's exactly what he said:

Quote

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” (“Worthiness to Receive Communion: General Principles”)

What this means is that a vote for a Democrat is not always a vote for abortion, specifically when you're not voting for the Democrat because of his permissiveness on the abortion issue.

"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" from the USCCB says the same thing:

Quote

"35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil."

Now, we can debate what "proportionate reasons" (Ratzinger) or "other morally grave reasons" (USCCB) might be. But, then we fall into the area of prudential judgment. The Church does not tell us who to vote for. She reminds us what we believe about moral issues, and then it's up to us to decide, based on a fully formed conscience guided by the Magisterium, how to apply that understanding to particular situations -- and two people of equally good faith can disagree on how best to do that.

[Peace]

28 minutes ago, phatcatholic said:

Here's exactly what he said:

What this means is that a vote for a Democrat is not always a vote for abortion, specifically when you're not voting for the Democrat because of his permissiveness on the abortion issue.

"Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" from the USCCB says the same thing:

Now, we can debate what "proportionate reasons" (Ratzinger) or "other morally grave reasons" (USCCB) might be. But, then we fall into the area of prudential judgment. The Church does not tell us who to vote for. She reminds us what we believe about moral issues, and then it's up to us to decide, based on a fully formed conscience guided by the Magisterium, how to apply that understanding to particular situations -- and two people of equally good faith can disagree on how best to do that.

Yes, he is completely wrong if you compare his stance to what the US Bishops have taught. Hence, his own bishop reprimanded him in public.

Also, I think you have to consider that Trump himself takes stances on grave matters that are contrary to Catholic teaching. Trump would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, but that is contrary to what the Church teaches. His stated stance on torture is also contrary to what the Church teaches. The Catholic who votes for Trump essentially makes the same prudential judgment in voting for Trump that the Catholic does who votes for Biden, although many of them will refuse to admit it.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Peace

[cutenickname]

(I know that the Catholic Church says we may not do evil to have good come from it, but what is the Church's position on choosing between two obvious wrongs? Voting for the guy who can't ever quite manage to condemn Nazis or voting for the guy who thinks vacuuming babies from the womb, dissecting them, and throwing them away is ok, or at least should be legal. I am not Catholic [a source of sadness and mourning for me], but I have enough faith left in the Church to think neither of these old white dudes represent a Catholic vision of the Social Kingship of Christ. With care someone might be able to convince me to vote third party rather than Biden, but there is no way I am voting for the toddler, not while my skin is set up like this.)

[cutenickname]

18 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

There are not currently a plethora of Christian sects that teach marrying black people is a sin.

You might be able to find a couple, such as the Westboro Baptists; I would argue even those couple you might find are not Christian.

An interesting thing about Westboro, they are viciously homophobic, probably the only people on the planet Trads, the LGBTQIA lobby, Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and the Catholic Church all agree are problematically homophobic, but they are and have always been anti racists. Fred Phelps, at great personal cost, was apparently something of a civil rights leader back in the day. And Fred's Savior brought him to a state of repentance regarding the abuse he heaped on q/ueer folks by the time of his death, which resulted in him (the founder!) being excommunicated from Westboro.

Racism, murderous homophobia, etc are all grave sins; but none of them makes the believer who holds these positions a non-Christian. It just makes them bad Christians, a scandal, and a poor witness for Our Lord's work of redeeming all the lost and broken things.

I unblocked you to say this. I don't remember why I blocked you. No matter, eyes forward. Heaven is the goal.

Edited September 30, 2020 by cutenickname

[Jaime]

On 9/29/2020 at 8:28 AM, Anomaly said:

That’s sexist AND specist!

Roll it back, boulder.