pionono Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 17 2004, 07:41 PM'] No offense intended, but I don't agree in any way, shape, or form if this quote was intended the way it sounds. A person should [i]never[/i] be held suspect because of an act of charity. If you hold him suspect for being pro-abortion, fine, thats a perfectly valid reason. If you hold him suspect because you don't agree with his political views, fine, thats a perfectly valid reason. If you hold him suspect for an act of charity, [i]not fine[/i], because that is like saying that all catholics should be held suspect for acting catholic. I don't think you intended for it to be read that way at all (at least I hope not) but I just thought the distinction should be made. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] I don't hold him to be a suspicious character for an "act of charity" in the general sense. I regard him as such because of this supposed act of charity produced. He donated money to build what is perhaps the most hideous Cathedral in the Catholic Church (if we can say that it is even a cathedral or for that matter, Catholic). Specifically he donated the bronze doors which bear the emblems of multiple pagan religions. As far as the other stuff you mentioned (abortion, political views, etc.), these are well beyond suspicion. They are down right evil. Not every act of "charity" is a good act. I mean the word charity in the broad sense. A person can give to charity and commit grave sin by doing so if the cause they have supported is bad. Mahoney's "cathedral" is right there on that line (or well over it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 every act of charity is materially good, though it may not be meritoriously good, that is, help one get into heaven and come into communion with Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pionono Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 So would you say that it is a materially good act if I were to donate money to Planned Parenthood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 [quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Jul 17 2004, 12:53 PM'] Arnold goes to Mass regularly with his family. He was the biggest donner to Cardinal Mahoney's fund, like a few Million$$$, for the new Our Lady of Angels Cathedral in L.A. [/quote] That doesn't necessarily mean much. Kerry attends Mass, and the Kennedy family is said to donote to the Catholic Church. We all know that many of the Kennedys are far from ideal Catholics. If Arnold did in fact donate those doors engraved with pagan symbols (and if he did so willingly and knowingly), that would be a bad thing. Where Arnold, Kerry, and the Kennedys stand with God isn't for me to judge. I just know that they support things that go against Catholic teaching. They support cold-blooded murder, and no good Catholic can support cold-blooded murder. God bless, Jennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 (edited) one could never claim that aiding sin is an act of charity. If you are not making that distinction, then the fallicy of the situation lies with you. Edited July 18, 2004 by JeffCR07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 18 2004, 02:02 PM'] one could never claim that aiding sin is an act of charity. If you are not doing so, then the fallicy of the situation lies with you. [/quote] Which means that if Arnold donated the doors, willingly and knowingly, i.e., if he knew they symbolized a sort of religious pluralism, his act would not be an act of charity, right? God bless, Jen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Just to clarify: An act that is materially good, but not meritoriously good, would be when, merely as an example, a person gives money to a beggar for the purpose of being perceived as a good person. Good deeds beget rewards, but as Christ has said, "They have received their reward" Thus, a charitable act can be either materially good, or both materially and meritoriously good. Aiding and Abetting Sin is neither of these things. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Hi Jeff, Gotcha. I see what you're saying. God bless, Jen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 PedroX, of course you are right. The lesser of two evils isn't much comfort, just less evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Apparently the message has gotten through to convention leaders. Erika Harold (Miss America 2003), who is active in pro-life and abstinance speaking events, has been added to the list of speakers at the convention. [url="http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17804"]http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17804[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now