All Priests Must Play Recorded Homily On Life And Family Or Suffer

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129604' date='Nov 28 2006, 01:43 AM']
Well, actually, I haven't. You have to look at the lager picture. Falling in line behind the cassocks doesn't neccesarily promote the Gospel.

All great truths begin as heresy.
[/quote]
You did use a straw man fallacy. You implied that my position was to care only for the major, definitive issues, and to let the rest fall into the gutter. That is false.

[bonoducchi]

By voting for a Republican, that's what you did. Sorry.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129696' date='Nov 28 2006, 10:23 AM']
By voting for a Republican, that's what you did. Sorry.
[/quote]
Why do you assume I voted for a Republican?

Anyway, voting for Republicans hardly allows all the other issues to slide into the gutter. That's just nonsense and has nothing to do with theology. Republicans have plans for everything Democrats have plans for. The fact of the matter is that there are more Republicans more in line with the Church on more important matters than there are Democrats...so in most cases (not all), they should get the votes.

As a matter of fact, however, I have not voted Republican in six years.

[bonoducchi]

Good - then you're part of the solution. Theology means nothing if it doesn't inform how we live. And voting is a big part of how we shape our way of life. You cannot divorce theology from life. If the Republicans are more in line with the Church, why haven't you voted for them in 6 years?

Republicans don't have plans that give conrete relief. The Democrats have planned polices that offer at least some relief and aid. Christ is about [b]LOVING PEOPLE[/b][i][u]!!

Edited November 28, 2006 by VaticanIILiturgist

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129742' date='Nov 28 2006, 12:02 PM']Republicans don't have plans that give conrete relief. The Democrats have planned polices that offer at least some relief and aid. Christ is about [b]LOVING PEOPLE[/b][i][u]!![/quote]Democrats offers policies that force or trick third-world women into sterilizing themselves, among other things. I've been there, and know some of their "relief and aid policies" first-hand.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Mateo el Feo

[franciscanheart]

Our bishop has done similar things but it's never been a tape-recorded homily. Our deacon sometimes gets up and reads a letter from the bishop at the pulpit though.

[Aloysius]

Democratic policies are not in line with the fundamental Catholic Social Justice principal of subsidarity. It is wrong and immoral for the federal government to be the primary charitable organization, because that violates the idea that whatever can be accomplished at lower levels ought to be accomplished there-- primarily individuals, and what individuals cannot do alone families should do; and what families cannot do, local governments should do; and what local governments cannot do, state governments ought to do. and only when state governments are incapable should the federal government do it. that is a fundamental principal of Catholic social justice-- and it's a smart thing too, the Church recognizes impersonality and beaurocracy will only hurt people and take away their freedom little by little.

the Republicans talk a lot in line with this principal, but they haven't been following it (they should be cutting more federal programs and empowering state and local governments, but they have not done so). the Democrats tend to openly oppose this principal; putting them at odds with the Church's teaching on social justice.

You have the popular over-simplification of politics though... to the point of ridiculous absurdities-- apparently those of us who believe in the principal of subsidarity as the greatest aid to human dignity and freedom do not "[b]LOVE PEOPLE[/b]". Raph is right about your straw-man.

The principals the bishop laid out for voting are good ones-- and that's all he did ( he did not support any specific candidate). principals like opposing abortion and gay marriage which are always inherently evil even if it means allowing some things which are not the ideal situation but which are not inherently evil. he laid out principals of Catholic doctrine-- and that is what a homily is for.

I really can't believe the absurdity... "i haven't voted republican in six years"... "good then you're part of the solution!" rotfl. he could be voting for communist nazis for all you know, and he would automatically be part of the solution! but even assuming he's voting for democrats.. that does not necessarily make him part of the solution to poverty... that's utturly absurd.

personally... I might elect a democrat to a local office, but I'd certainly never send one to Harisburg (PA) or Washington DC, because they are at odds with the Church on issues of human dignity which are inherently evil and also their part platform is contrary to Catholic teaching, the teaching of Christ Himself for there is no separation between Him and His body, on issues of social justice.

[bonoducchi]

The Republicans support unjust war (the Church is opposed to it, remember?) - that's against human dignity. The Republicans are silent on genocide in Darfur - that's against human dignity. The Republicans tacetly support kidnapping torture torture (the Church is against this as per CCC. 2297-8) and the death penalty (the Church is against that in our modern situation ) - that's against human dignity. Is that what you want governing you? If abortion and gay marriage is the most important issue to you, that's cool, but don't act as if the Church can only be properly represented on a state or national level by Republicans.

[Aloysius]

the Church is against certain principals of war, and certain principals of the death penalty, and the Vatican expresses these things in the context of the modern political arena by advising against the Iraq war (though they came out in favor of staying in Iraq as long as it takes) and against wide application of the death penalty-- but Church teaching does not compel us to believe the Iraq war as inherently evil, nor the death penalty as inherently evil. it does require us to believe abortion as inherently evil and gay marriage as inherently evil.

the democrats and republicans alike have ignored darfur and it's horrible, but it's really not a partisan issue- both are to blame and both ought to help.

hey... kinda like how the democrats and republicans alike supported going to war in Iraq huh? John Paul II's opinion was expressed in his meeting with President Bush that even though he didn't support going to war, he supported the continuing support for the new democratic government by the American military. if we want to throw around Vatican politics as if they were binding, I would say you have to accept that we have to continue in Iraq.

torture is of course wrong, and I disagree with it. it is inherently evil-- not as inherently evil as abortion; and since they're different types of sins I don't know if it's more or less evil than gay marriage; but that is an inherent evil that some republicans support and that needs to be stopped. of course, the evil killing of innocent children takes precedence in needing to be stopped over the torture, but not death, of very dangerous men who would like to kill many innocents.

[bonoducchi]

If this post site require absolute fidelity to Rome, then we must operate with Vatican politics viewed as binding.

How is staying in Iraq, getting our young people killed for an end that is not in sight with the current course? Abortion is not the only issue.

Why is torturing more wrong than aborting a child? Is one life more important and dignified than the other?

[Aloysius]

absolutely the murder of an innocent child would be worse than murder of an adult; not because all lives don't have equal dignity but because the child is never even given the chance to live his life. but this isn't even comparing two murders, at the end of the torture the terrorist is still alive. murder is definitely more evil than torture; that's what the Church teaches. but both are inherently evil and mortally sinful and cannot be supported. sadly, there are some republicans and democrats who disagree. this certainly needs to be changed.

this site requires those who claim to be Catholics to have absolute fidelity to rome on matters of faith and morals as they are taught, and to not be disrespectful to the bishops. the politics of the Vatican are not teachings on faith or morals, though those who form them are worthy of our respect as our shepherds of course.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Just had to say: I haven't voted Republican in six years because I haven't voted in six years. In 2004, they ran out of absentee ballot request forms at my local place and I don't drive, so I couldn't get one soon enough. This last election, I received the wrong type of absentee ballot request form and didn't have time to get the correct type.

[quote]Republicans don't have plans that give conrete relief. The Democrats have planned polices that offer at least some relief and aid. Christ is about LOVING PEOPLE!![/quote]

Democratic policies generally hurt people more than help if they are applied with full force. Raising the minimum wage drives up the cost of living, price caps limit labor motivation, etc. It's a straw man fallacy to say that the Republicans aren't in favor of helping people just because we believe in a different way of doing it.

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129820' date='Nov 28 2006, 01:48 PM']
If this post site require absolute fidelity to Rome, then we must operate with Vatican politics viewed as binding.

How is staying in Iraq, getting our young people killed for an end that is not in sight with the current course? Abortion is not the only issue.

Why is torturing more wrong than aborting a child? Is one life more important and dignified than the other?
[/quote]
We have absolute fidelity to Rome in as much as the Church is a legitimate authority. She does not have final politic say (nor does she claim to) and therefore, we needn't view her politics as binding, but still must give serious weight to what she says. If the matter is part of her competence, then we must obey.

[scardella]

Should this be moved?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='scardella' post='1129927' date='Nov 28 2006, 03:03 PM']
Should this be moved?
[/quote]
Sure, why not.

[bonoducchi]

If a particluar issue is part of the Church's competence we must obey but her position isn't binding? You have to pick one.

I don't want debate Reagnomics here, but a few views of mine: Keeping money at the top only increases greed at the top. The stratisfying of wealth has only increased in this country in the past 10 years. Where are the poor in the decisions? It really concerns me that we seem so concerned with fidelity to Rome and are giving second consideration to those we are charged as Christians to care for. Is it possible our priorites are a bit upside down?

The Holy Father deserves great credit for his first encyclical, and I greatly appreciate his reasoned approach to faith. Yet it gives me great pause to think of a Church that is run like an army instead of a community of believing, worshiping, and Christ-imitating Christians. The pastoral position involves walking in front of your flock, leading themhome, not kicking them from behind. If it looks like my pastor is walking of a cliff, why would I follow that?