Kerrolicism

[ironmonk]

[quote name='gopherball33' date='Aug 9 2004, 10:00 PM'] I know that profanity and blasphemy is not good, but wouldn't stifling them equate to stifling a person's free will? I mean, it is a person's choice to blaspheme or cuss. If he or she chooses to, that's not necessarily good, but they should be able to as they have free will. [/quote]
Free will is to choose our own actions... to do as we will is free will.... trash talking God is something different.... profanity is something different.

Don't confuse "free will" to "free speech"... "free speech" is not a God given right. "free speech" means you cannot be punished for what you say... but "free speech" is a farce because if it was truely free, then you could talk revolution without fear... that is illegal, because it harms society... therefore profanity and blasphemy should be illegal also because it harms society.

In the OT times, if you even said "God", you were put to death.

If people were punished for trash talking God or profanity, then people wouldn't do it.


It was free will that gave those four men the ok to beat those six people to death with aluminum baseball bats in Deltona... They are now going to be punished. Should they be free to kill as they wish since they have free will?

See what I'm saying? Free speech is not free will....


God Bless,
ironmonk

[MorphRC]

Freedom of Speech is disappearing very quickly in some Western Societies, with these so called 'Terrorism Acts[Gov Bills]' and 'Patriot Acts.

[Anna]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 6 2004, 09:27 AM'] Do you people honestly believe that a person in america can honesty follow the Church to every rule and law, and still be a senator or whatever you call them? [/quote]
In fact, I believe they would make ideal leaders ~ and role models for the rest of society.
Do you have a problem with that?

(Let's just call them "elected officials," whether they be judges, senators, representatives, presidents, or the local dog catcher. Would that they would be of sound character and moral judgement, every one!)

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

[quote name='St. Catherine' date='Aug 8 2004, 02:31 PM'] There was a truck with a Kerry for president bumper sticker in our church parking lot today....... What is even worse I think the person who drives that truck is related to me. [/quote]
You poor thing. How embarassing.

I was scandalized by the Catholic school teachers' bumper stickers for Al Gore in the last election, and Clinton/Gore before that.

Even my kids questioned their teachers in those days, particularly on the subject of abortion. Can you guess what they were told?

"There are a lot of 'other important issues,'" like what? Higher salaries for teachers? More money for education? Funny how those candidates were always promising to throw more money into programs to 'benefit children,' but also had no conscience about using taxpayer funds to kill babies.

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 9 2004, 10:41 AM'] Im talking about before.

I dont see a catholic getting into office while upholding all the rules and laws. To much anti-catholicism. [/quote]
Agreed.
Sinners feel more comfortable voting for those who most closely resemble them. That way, it doesn't prick their consciences.
Many don't really want a moral leader!

I understand where you're coming from now.

But historically speaking, Kennedy did much to support anti-Catholicism, when he pandered to the Southern Baptists in 1960 with remarks such as the following quotes.

Tell me, pholks, [b]can't you hear Kerry [/b]and his kind taking these statements to the next logical step (away from Truth)?

[url="http://www.civnet.org/resources/teach/basic/part10/66.htm"]http://www.civnet.org/resources/teach/basic/part10/66.htm[/url]
[quote][color=blue]I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- [b]where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act [/b]and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference...
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and [b][i]obligated to none[/i] [/b]-- who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill -- and [b]whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation. [/b]This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe...

I ask you tonight... to judge me on the basis of fourteen years in the Congress -- on my [u]declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican[/u], against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I attended myself) ...

...I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic...
I do not speak for my church on public matters -- [b]and the church does not speak for me. [/b]Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and [b]without regard [/b][b]to[/b] outside [b]religious[/b] pressure or [b]dictate[/b]. [i]And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.[/i] [/color][/quote]

While many of these statements were preceded or followed by statements sounding like a loyal Catholic, I believe that these sentiments took hold. They got Kennedy into the top office in the land, and other Catholic politicians followed his lead, casting their Faith aside more and more in attempts to garner the popular vote.

Sad, isn't it?

Fast forward 40 years, and we have "Catholic" politicians writing the bishops, warning:
[quote][color=blue]Your Eminence:
We the undersigned, are Catholic Members of Congress who are increasingly concerned about statements made recently by some members of the Catholic hierarchy indicating that the sacrament of communion should be withheld from certain Catholic legislators because of their votes on public issues. The focus has been on legislators' pro-choice position on abortion but this raises much broader issues that concern all of us.

[b]We firmly believe that it would be wrong for a bishop to deny the sacrament of holy communion to an individal on the basis of a voting record. [/b]We believe that such an action would be counter-productive and would bring great harm to the Church.

Our concerns about [u][b]the [i]apparent threat [/i]of withholding a sacrament [i]in order to influence[/i] how a legislator acts[/b][/u] go beyond the issue of pro-choice or pro-life, as indicated by the fact that some of the undersigned have "pro-life" voting records. While some of us differ on this issue, each and every one of us is committed to the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social justice - helping the poor and underprivileged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and insuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country.

We also emphasize that legislators viewed as "pro-choice" can and do take steps every day in their Congressional lives to advance respect for life and respect for the dignity of every human being. In fact, many of us became members of Congress to do just that. That commitment involves different things for different legislators but includes pushing for real health care reform, reluctance before war and promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Some of those who are viewed as pro-choice have voiced opposition to capital punishment, and are active on other issues affecting life, including hunger relief and human rights. At the same time, [b]we live in a nation of laws and the [i][B]Supreme Court [/b][/i]has declared that our Constitution [b]provides women with a right to an abortion[/b][/B]. [u][b]Members who vote for legislation consistent with that mandate are not acting contrary to our positions as faithful members of the Catholic Church[/b].[/u] We also do not believe that it is the obligation of legislators to prohibit all conduct which we may, as a matter of personal morality, believe is wrong. Likewise, as Catholics, we do not believe it is our role to legislate the teachings of the Catholic Church. For any of us to be singled out by any bishop by the refusal of communion or other public criticism because we vote in what we believe are the requirements of the United States Constitution and laws of our country, which we are sworn to uphold. is deeply hurtful. [i]We would remind those who would deny us participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist that we are sworn to represent all Americans, not just Catholics[/i]. Church leaders must recognize, as did the great Catholic theologian and scholar John Courtney Murray, that [b]in public life distinctions must be made between public and private morality[/b]. Because we represent all of our constituents we must, at times, [b]separate our public actions from our personal beliefs.[/b]
As the bishops of the United States recently emphasized in the publication Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, "In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship. Is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation." As legislators chosen by the people we represent, [i]we take that moral obligation seriously[/i]. This means that [u]we are called to represent the views of our constituents even when those views may conflict with some of our personal views[/u].

If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, [u]the Church will lose strong advocates [/u]on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching. Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and [u]in the long run the Church will suffer[/u]. For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who [i]feared that they would take direction from the Pope[/i]. Opponents to John F. Kennedy expressed the view that, if elected, his first act would be to build a tunnel from the White House to Rome. While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, [b]attempts by Church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament[/b] will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which [b]so many of us have worked so hard to overcome[/b].

Nor do we see how the bishops could limit this punishment to the pro-choice issue alone, and we are troubled by the possible consequences of proceeding down this road. Both the Holy Father and members of the U.S. hierarchy have condemned the death penalty, as well as the war in Iraq. Will an individual bishop decide to deny communion to a legislator -Republican or Democrat - who has voted in favor of the death penalty? Will another bishop decide to communion to a legislator who authorized the war in Iraq? Such conduct would foster division within the Church as well as division between the hierarchy and the laity. [b]And allowing a bishop to take actions that lead to involvement in partisan politics would be detrimental to the Church.[/b] As the USCCB recognizes in Faithful Citizenship. “The Catholic community is large and diverse. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.” Unfortunately, tbe threats of some bishops to withhold communion from "pro-choice legislators has the effect of miring the Church in partisan politics and allowing the Church to be used for partisan purposes.

[b]All of us firmly believe that we can be good Congresspersons and good Catholics [/b]and we respectfully submit that, while sometimes difficult, [b]each of us has the responsibility and the right to balance public morality with private morality without pressure from certain bishops[/b]. While we do not question the authority of the bishops, we respectfully submit that each of us is in the best position to know the state of our soul and our relationship to God and our Church. Therefore, each of God's children should be the final judge as to whether it is appropriate for them to receive the sacrament of communion.

[b]We raise these issues[/b], not just to address the immediate reports about the pro-choice issue, but [b]to underscore importance of Catholic teachings to all of us[/b]. It is reflected in the broad range of issues where we have so much affinity with the Church. [u]The Church has played a central role in all of our lives and instilled in us a value system that drives us to fight for a better life for all Americans. We value the Church, its teachings and are proud to be Catholics[/u].

We thank you for attention to this important issue. When your schedule permits, representatives of our group would appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you and if, you feel it appropriate, other members of your task force, so that we may begin a dialogue on these issues which are so important to the Church and to us. In the meantime, feel free to share this letter with your fellow bishops.

Sincerely,

Rosa L. DeLauro
Ed Pastor
James P. McGovern
Ciro D. Rodriguez
Nick Lampson
Raul M. Grijalva
James P. Moran
Silvestre Reyes
Linda T. Sanchez
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Bart Stupak
Michael E. Capuano
Betty McCollum
Anna G. Eshoo
Carolyn McCarthy
John D. Dingell
Peter A DeFazio
Stephen F. Lynch
Edward J. Markey
Jose E. Serrano
Madeleine Z. Bordallo
Tim Ryan
Lane Evans
Hilda L. Solis
Michael F. Doyle
John B. Larson
Maurice D. Hinchey
Loretta Sanchez
Mike Thompson
Robert A. Brady
Diane E. Watson
Jim Langevin
Joe Baca
Charles A. Gonzalez
Nydia M. Velazquez
Martin T. Meehan
William Lacy Clay
Frank Pallone, Jr.
George Miller
Karen McCarthy
Dennis A. Cardoza
Xavier Becerra
Grace F. Napolitano
William D. Delahunt
James L. Oberstar
Luis V. Gutierrez
Dennis J. Kucinich
Nancy Pelosi[/color]

[/quote]

In short, [i]"we 'Catholic' politicians have the right to make the laws of the land, and you bishops have no right to tell us we're breaking God's laws when doing so![/i] So, with all due respect, your Eminence(s), back off."
Pax Christi. <><

Edited August 10, 2004 by Anna

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Anna' date='Aug 10 2004, 08:36 AM'] In short, [i]"we 'Catholic' politicians have the right to make the laws of the land, and you bishops have no right to tell us we're breaking God's laws  when doing so![/i] So, with all due respect, your Eminence(s), back off."
[/quote]

If I were the cardinal,

My reply would go something like this:

[quote]Dear Politicians.

  It is tragic and unfortunate that, in this age of advances in every field, our country is governed by such an array of idiots and numbskulls as yourselves. Having prayed and discerned in this matter a great deal, I have come to the following conclusions.

1. Even combined, you're all dumber than a bag of hammers. I mean really.

2. The Church cannot compromise on the truth, nor can she ignore the actions of those who do.

3. One never achieves a good by allowing an evil.

4. I don't make the rules. The Holy Spirit does. Send any further correspondence to Him.

5. Please find enclosed a case of Shut Up. Share and enjoy.

6. Really. It's a wonder you people are allowed outdoors without helmets.

Cheerio,

The Cardinal.
[/quote]


This is why it is good that I am not a cardinal, and instead, merely a cracker of wise on discussion boards. It's just that sort of letter only bothers me.

Cheers,

Dave

Edited August 10, 2004 by mmmerf

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Anna' date='Aug 10 2004, 09:19 PM'] In fact, I believe they would make ideal leaders ~ and role models for the rest of society.
Do you have a problem with that?

(Let's just call them "elected officials," whether they be judges, senators, representatives, presidents, or the local dog catcher. Would that they would be of sound character and moral judgement, every one!)

Pax Christi. <>< [/quote]
You think I like an immoral society, with porn, sex, drugs, alcohol, and the rest shoved in our faces as normal, and then if we dont comply, were treated as weird?

My Point Is. Which Is Easy If You Read It Is:

Can a catholic follow every rule of the Church, and do you still expect him to get elected, or if he or she has already been elected, and decides to follow the rules, will be elected again?

I see it hard for a true Catholic to get into office, let alone stand in, if they choose to follow it.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Anna' date='Aug 10 2004, 10:06 PM'] Agreed.
Sinners feel more comfortable voting for those who most closely resemble them. That way, it doesn't prick their consciences.
Many don't really want a moral leader!

I understand where you're coming from now.

But historically speaking, Kennedy did much to support anti-Catholicism, when he pandered to the Southern Baptists in 1960 with remarks such as the following quotes.

Tell me, pholks, [b]can't you hear Kerry [/b]and his kind taking these statements to the next logical step (away from Truth)?

[url="http://www.civnet.org/resources/teach/basic/part10/66.htm"]http://www.civnet.org/resources/teach/basic/part10/66.htm[/url]


While many of these statements were preceded or followed by statements sounding like a loyal Catholic, I believe that these sentiments took hold. They got Kennedy into the top office in the land, and other Catholic politicians followed his lead, casting their Faith aside more and more in attempts to garner the popular vote.

Sad, isn't it?

Fast forward 40 years, and we have "Catholic" politicians writing the bishops, warning:


In short, [i]"we 'Catholic' politicians have the right to make the laws of the land, and you bishops have no right to tell us we're breaking God's laws when doing so![/i] So, with all due respect, your Eminence(s), back off."
Pax Christi. <>< [/quote]
Lol Sorry.

I just wrote a whole post then. Ok Good.

Unfortunately, it seems that a catholic must attack his faith or doubt it, so people like fundies and prots, dont label him a 'Vatican Drone'.

[Anna]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 10 2004, 10:37 AM'] You think I like an immoral society, with porn, sex, drugs, alcohol, and the rest shoved in our faces as normal, and then if we dont comply, were treated as weird?[/quote]



[/quote]
You've just described what it's like to be a Roman Catholic American!
But hey, I'd rather be called weird than to be thrown into a den of hungry lions, so I'm thankful for God's Wisdom in putting me here at this time in history.
I only hope that I will be as willing to do as much for His Church as past saints and martyrs have been willing to do in their day and age and location.

[quote] Can a catholic follow every rule of the Church, and do you still expect him to get elected, or if he or she has already been elected, and decides to follow the rules, will be elected again?[/quote] The most difficult thing is getting elected in the first place. It takes a lot of money to be able to effectively get one's message out to the people. The liberal media does a real hatchet job on many conservatives, too, and lots of folks only believe what they get from the media, without digging for further information. Yes, it is extremely difficult for a good, solid Catholic to be elected. But not impossible. Nothing is impossible with God!
And many good Catholics have gotten elected~and re-elected without denouncing articles of their Faith, as Kennedy, Kerry, and others have done.

(I'm thinking of Congressman Chris Smith, Senators Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, former Congressman Bob Dornan, just off the top of my head...)

Here's a Catholic website to help Catholics better understand the issues and the candidates, in terms of their Faith: [url="http://catholicaction.net/topraces.htm"]http://catholicaction.net/topraces.htm[/url] Utimately, we have the duty of informing ourselves and others, then voting responsibly.

[MorphRC]

[quote]You've just described what it's like to be a Roman Catholic American!
But hey, I'd rather be called weird than to be thrown into a den of hungry lions, so I'm thankful for God's Wisdom in putting me here at this time in history.
I only hope that I will be as willing to do as much for His Church as past saints and martyrs have been willing to do in their day and age and location.[/qupte]

Its starting to get this way here. Unfortunately, guess which country, or origin of country, this is coming from?

[Iacobus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 9 2004, 07:47 AM'] I do think he has a good point... the "Under God" clause keeps it that we follow God, but the Under God thing was not put into the Pledge until sometime in the 1940's if I remember correctly... and it was the Knights of Columbus that got it in there.

"Freedom of the press" is not something we have to support... the press should be liable for lies and the twists they do on the truth. They constantly go on which hunts to get ratings, they don't care about people.

Freedom of religion should be supported based on being able to let the muslims be muslim and not heretics within the Church... as previous Popes have stated.

Freedom of speech in so far as not going to jail for criticizing the government, but not for profanity or blasphemy


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Wow. I am agreeing with Ironmonk, that is almost a first. At least I am mostly agreeing.

Yes, the Congress insirted the "Under God" in the 1950's under Ike (or was it the 60's? I am not sure under someone else, I want to say it was Ike) in order to differencate the US and the "godless commies" in Russia. About the KoC putting it in... I havn't heard that, but I just know the why not the who (beyond Congress, I don't know who was supporting, pushing, for it).

The only point on this post which I disagree is the statement on freedom of press. I do see limits on it, yes. Lible should be wrong. And things like what Tucker did when he relivaeled the name of the CIA op is wrong. But public dissent from the goverment, not the church mind you, is needed for a healthy democary or republic to funtion. If the people don't know, they won't have the abilty to extert any real pressure in the goverment. An uninformed citizen cannot make an informed disceson. And the role of informing the people, inculding when it doesn't bode well for some, is the role of the presses. To limit what they can say, to limit public dissent, is to limit the abilty of the people to rule. And the lies in the press, some real some not, lean both ways. Cases in point? FOX News and NPR.

And I agree on the last two points and see nothing to add.

I just wanted to quote something my priest said the other day. "If you are comfortable, 100% comfortable, with what the US is today, something in your faith is broken." I think that extends beyond culture and society but into all aspects of the US. If I am 100% comfortable with any group of ideas or thoughts and not the indvilaual thoughts themselves, something in my faith is broken.

[Mateo el Feo]

From the above politicians' letter to bishops:
[quote]"For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the Pope."[/quote]
Juxtapose this statement against the following text from the official [url="http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/"]"John Kerry for President" website. (link)[/url]
[quote]"And John Kerry will only nominate individuals to the federal bench whose records demonstrate a respect for the full range of constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and the right to choose."[/quote]
Translation: Faithful Catholics need not apply.

Edited August 10, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[Anna]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 10 2004, 11:37 AM']

Its starting to get this way here. Unfortunately, guess which country, or origin of country, this is coming from? [/quote]
Looking around, I guess I'd have to say that it's almost global.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Anna' date='Aug 11 2004, 01:31 AM'] Looking around, I guess I'd have to say that it's almost global. [/quote]
Partly. But almost every Porn-store here according to this Christian-Activist group in South Australia, its coming from the massive porn industry in America. Asia contributing to the problem to

[MorphRC]

Iacobus, when did ur information change? U were stuck on the Non-Catholic group last time I saw.