Posted on 07/07/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
Yep, that’s how it works around here.
You wrote:
“1. Never fail to use the term “anti-Catholic” when one disagrees with you. It is a time worn tactic.”
1. Never fail to pretend the term anti-Catholic” is a tactic rather than the correct descriptor it is.
“2. Remember, There is no Encyclical which is so clear it cannot be explained, modified, or interpreted as required.”
2. Remember, there is no encyclical which anti-Catholics will not distort, misrepresent, or falsely interpret as they require to satisfy their own hatred.
Actually, when the hatred is so undeniable, the fall back position is to wave it off and pretend it doesn't exist.
No good answer to what? He was not asked a question.
Really? Which election was that?
Yep, that's the way it works around here.
And that’s why so many Catholics have turned to protestant churches, to get out from under the bondages Catholics have been under for centuries.
That’s right. Disgreement is not hate, but that’s what they always call it.
Amen, Diamond. YOU are correct.
Maths are hard.
They’re closing and merging churches in Central New York because of a shortage of priests. It’s pretty serious.
...the bondages Catholics have been under for centuries.
The anti-Catholic Elim cult teaches this kind of garbage every day.
Then the church should allow them to get married. Problem solved.
You wrote:
“OK Let’s take a more recent (if shopworn) example: Adolf Hitler. Duly elected bad guy.”
No. He was appointed by the German president. He was not elected as chancellor. He was appointed and then given supreme powers legally through the German Reichstag. He was not elected to more than the typical parliamentary office.
“Did he stop being a ruthless murderer due to the principle of subsidiarity?”
So you’re denying the value of subsidiarity by pointing pout a ruthless dictator who denied it? That’s like saying babies’ lives must be worthless because abortionists deny that they have worth. If you were smart, just play along for a minute, you would have realized that Germany was a state with no history of subsidiarity in politics. If Germany had been thorouhly embued with subsidiarity would Hitler have ever come to power? No. Subsidiarity as a principle would deny centralization which was essential to the Nazis. But, of course, this reality is al lost on you.
“Did he ever heed any admonition from the Pope?”
Nope. Do yo? Apparently not.
“I am not attacking the Pope, or Catholics. I am saying that this call for a “World Authority,” and imagining that any such authority would be subject to ANY principle completely ignores human nature.”
So we should then abandon principles because human nature often fights against them?
“Period.”
Again, should we then abandon principles because human nature often fights against them?
“If you want to go beyond that (with me) bring it on.”
You’ve already lost. We must support principles or else we lose what it means to be human no matter what the flaws of human nature.
You wrote:
“Then the church should allow them to get married. Problem solved.”
The Church did allow them to marry. That’s what they left the active priesthood to do. Problem solved.
S Y.
No, they should have been allowed to marry and continue in the Catholic priesthood, but you already knew that.
You wrote:
“And that’s why so many Catholics have turned to protestant churches, to get out from under the bondages Catholics have been under for centuries.”
Not at all. If you look at easily over 90% of former Catholics who became Protestants it’s clear that they were never catechized well and rarely if ever practiced their faith. That is a terrible indictment about Church officials over the last 40 years, but not an indictment of the faith or the Church herself. As a former Protestant minister once remarked to me: the Catholic Church is getting Protestant minsiters to join her and they were well catechized in their former faith and risked everything to become Catholics. The Protestant sects, however, are getting former Catholics who usually had little knowledge of their former faith and risk absolutely nothing n joining Protestant sects. Their lives, in fact, become easier because of the lower Protestant standards (e.g. acceptance of birth control, divorce, etc) and their consciences are more easily assuaged because of false doctrines like lack of free will and once-saved-always-saved that removes a feeling of responsibility for sinful decisions.
You wrote:
“No, they should have been allowed to marry and continue in the Catholic priesthood, but you already knew that.”
No, they took a vow. They should stick to it. If they can’t then they should be released from the active priesthood. People should keep their vows.
I haven't called anyone a liar. It seems to be you here first resorting to name calling like that. It appears to me that you are calling me a liar for observing that the Pope wants to redistribute wealth and proposes a world authority with armed power, a NEW bureaucracy, which I interpret as more bureaucracy. Your semantic quibble over whether the Pope actually wants what he proposes, i.e., another layer of world bureaucracy, strikes me as lame.
So say you, but other doctors disagree.
Free Enterprise is the "patient", and the patient is not sick, except for the equivalent of 18th century doctors inflicting their bloodletting on the life blood of liberty.
Try alternative medicine
There won't be any alternatives under the jackboot of a global "authority" if they kill Free Enterprise with their witchdoctor cures that promise charity and threaten prison and death for disobedience.
Cordially,
This about elections:
With new election coming up in March 1930, he seized the moment. Hitler and the Nazis went on a whirlwind campaign, making several speeches a day and cascading Nazi propaganda. When all was said and done, Hitler and the Nazis became the second largest political party overnight, winning 107 seats in the Reichstag, the German House.
With a rapid takeover of the Reichstag soon complete, Hitler set his sights for the presidency. In 1932, Hitler ran against Hindenburg in March. With his “Freedom and Bread” campaign slogan, Hitler and the Nazis ran a furious campaign, far out reaching that of 1930. His counterpart, Hindenburg, relied on his reputation to win and did far less than his eager opponent. In the spring of 1932, with 6 million Germans out of work, chaos in Berlin, starvation, and an uncertain future, people looked towards the Nazis with a new and positive light. On March 13, the results came back and Hitler had won 30% and Hindenburg 49%, a run-off election had to take place to decide the winner. The Nazis set out on another whirlwind campaign and Hindenburg did even less than before. Rumors stared of Hindenburg having ill health, but his overall reputation won him the election in the end. However, the Nazi Party gained a huge following and Hitler a new sense of hope for the future.
On July 31st 1933, Hitler’s sense of hope was strengthened was the Nazi Party became the largest party in the Reichstag. The 33 election won Hitler 230 seats in the House. With a strong control of the government and being sworn in as the Chancellor of the German Nation several months prior (Jan. 30, 1933),
http://www.uvm.edu/~sgutman/Twentieth_Century_History.html#The%20Rise%20of%20Hitler
Although there is a difference of opinion regarding elected/appointed, the electionscaused the appointment.
No. He was appointed by the German president. He was not elected as chancellor. He was appointed and then given supreme powers legally through the German Reichstag. He was not elected to more than the typical parliamentary office.(#633)
Is there ANY reason to imagine that ANY elected/appointed "world authority" would be any different?
If you were smart, just play along for a minute, you would have realized that Germany was a state with no history of subsidiarity in politics.
If you were smart, just play along for a minute, you would have realized that THE WORLD is a state with no history of subsidiarity in politics.
Nope. Do yo? Apparently not.
Oh, excellent rejoinder. And so to the point.
Again, should we then abandon principles because human nature often fights against them?
Principles are fine things. I think everybody should express their principles. I do not think anyone should call for a "world authority," to redistribute wealth and bring about disarmament, and imagine that such an authority would actually follow any principle.
DG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.