Posted on 08/16/2012 7:12:26 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Ping!
Well, there’s a polite response. You remember that passage in Scripture about speaking the truth in love? Catholics believe in that, don’t they? I do. If you don’t like what I have to say, fine. But there is absolutely no reason to go scatological on me.
Besides, the argument is good. You didn’t address the substance of it, which, I surmise, is why you had to resort to vulgarity. I could no more support a blatant polytheist for President than I could a flagrant adulterer or an ongoing murderer. That’s not just a difference in denominational flavor. Aspiration to deity is intrinsic evil, positively Luciferian. I find it sad that so many Catholics here are not uncomfortable with it.
In any event, I am sorry if my convictions offend you. But I have not yet found anything in Scripture that permits me to voluntary empower anyone whose “church” is devoted to destroying Christian faith and opposing the Christian God. As John says, even to bid godspeed to such a person is to become a partaker in their evil, and, I surmise, the judgment that must surely follow. You do what you want. I want no part of that.
Peace,
SR
Serial monogamy is not Biblical "one man - one woman marriage."
If you want to hold politicians to that standard, fine. I expect to see charts analyzing all the candidates' marital status. It should be interesting.
Perhaps it has always been so, I don't know. I remember reading about timorous clergy in fin de seicle Paris who couldn't bring themselves to preach to their bourgeois congregations when the text was "Woe to you rich." Nowadays there's little on the Commandments, on the reality of Divine Judgment, practically nothing on our disputed Catholic sex-and-gender doctrines, and what you get on "social justice" has heretofore been likely the Democratic Party agenda dressed up in ecclesiastical bafflegab. This is not Catholic doctrine.
Raises the question, "Is a teaching a teaching, if nobody is teaching it?"
Good thing the Catholic Catechism is online, and searchable (Link) --- I go there regularly, just a keystroke away! --- as are the conciliar documents, the encyclicals, and of course there are great Catholic blogs and websites.
The other good news is that we seem to have turned a corner. Morlino's statement is a good example of it. For years we were sandbagged by the "Jean Jadot and Pio Laghi bishops" --- so named because they were appointed under the influence of Jadot and Laghi, the Apostolic Nuncios to the US decades back --- but now the B-16s are finally coming down the runway.
Pray for this restoration. I mean it. It's like a baby surrounded by wolves. Pray HARD for the Pope.
Much in every religion is actually cultural -- things tend to stay the way they were when and where the religion was founded, or when it was socially most powerful; hence the pipe organ tradition of worship music and the nun's habits from early Holy Roman Empire days. Among American Protestants, many neighborhood congregations retain the stripped-down frontier church of plain altar platforms and excruciating hard pews; and the traditionally teetotaling denominations always offer grape juice instead of wine as Communion. Many of our nation's Christmas decorations reflect the folk traditions, evergreens, mistletoe and holly of our European founding populations, having symbolic value attached to them rather than meaning arising from the scriptures.
Having grown up in a half-Protestant, half-Catholic extended family, I've had a view of both cultures all my life, if not both religions in full. So my question here is, don't Catholic churches have Sunday School for children and adults? Along with doughnuts and jello mold salads, Sundy School and/or Bible study classes are usually found in most Protestant denominations; although the Democrat Party line is also a big danger there since the 60s. There are some very good curricula, however, such as the excellent Christian Believer workbooks, which cover the broad history of teachings, from the Nicene Council on down.
btw, thank you for the link to the online catechism. I was in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception bookstore a couple of times recently and could not find it.
Also, if anyone knows where to get a Bible translation in vernacular Italian, I'd like to find one.
A lot of parishes have launched Fr. Robert Barron's "Catholicism" series. It's really excellent, and a lot of it is on the Internet. I realy recommend plugging to Fr. Barron. I could roll out my Thesaurus-of-Superlatives to describe him, the adjectives centering around the synonyms for "broad" and "deep." Or in other words, "Catholic."
As far as I know, the best and most recent Italian language Bible is the CEI Edition (Conferenza Episcopale Italiana) published in 2008. You can find that at Amazon.com (Link) and probably elsewhere online...
May Our Lord bless you, FRiend.
And bless you profoundly!
Your parish is lucky to have your involvement in religious education. Go, Mrs!
I agree that a politician embroiled in unrepentant adultery is almost as problematic as an open idolater. Both are rejections of the most basic of God’s laws, and therefore intrinsically evil, and had I known then (1980, 1984) what I know now, I would have been forced to reconsider. Of course, the same applies to JFK, but I wasn’t voting that far back.
However, there are distinctions between Reagan’s case and Romney’s. Reagan did not seek the divorce. Jane Wyman did, allegedly becoming attached to her costar in Johnny Belinda, Lew Ayers, while married to Reagan. If so, the much debated “adultery exception” of Matthew 19:9 may apply:
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Now if you know your natural law, you have to admit that obligating a Presbyterian to the finer points of Catholic marriage rules cannot possibly qualify as “intrinsic evil,” because to so qualify, a deed must be evil according to what is accessible by nature and reason to all people everywhere, not just Catholics. Murder so qualifies. Deserting your spouse for another qualifies. Seeking to be God qualifies. But falling short on the technicalities of a specific body of claimed revelation does not qualify, not even according to Aquinas. Especially when the words of Jesus Himself seem to confirm an exception.
But even if Reagan had been a Catholic operating under Catholic law, he might have done OK. He did not initiate the divorce. Jane Wyman did. Furthermore, Wyman had been married before, and under Catholic annulment rules, Reagan may have an argument that the marriage was unlawful to begin with. Furthermore, the disqualification for public office outlined by the bishop’s rubric of “persistent intrinsic evil” would not logically apply to a sin repented of, even if the consequences could not be justly reversed, and it is possible Reagan repented. No one but God and Reagan know for sure.
Bottom line, if Reagan were running this year, I could probably talk myself into supporting him, despite his mistakes, because his life was not about his occasional unworthy mistakes, but his persistent and worthy aspirations.
But Romney is still a temple Mormon. His persistent aspiration to deity is his intrinsic evil; “god in embryo,” purveyor of a false gospel, preacher of a false Christ. He is unworthy of support from any who follow Christ in truth. Until he breaks from the LDS, I have no choice but to reject him.
Peace,
SR
Myself, I would make a distinction between (I don't know quite what to call it) "depraved heart" crimes, i.e. crimes of malice or "moral turpitude," vs. errors which may stem from a good will being led down a mistaken path.
I think crimes against one's fellow human beings are more often in the first category, because anyone who reflects on "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you," knows that they wouldn't want to be murdered, betrayed by their spouse, cheated or defrauded, lied about, etc.
On the other hand, religious errors, although objectively based on falsehood, are more often in the second category, "Honest mistakes." No malice involved.
This is especially if the erring brother is following the religious training and instruction he received from his mother and father. He associates these doctrines with the goodness of the people he trusted most, he receives the esteem of honest people, he is intending to follow the path of godliness, and his conscience doesn't reprove him: not because he has a wicked, seared conscience, but because it has been misled from his earliest instruction.
It's always legitimate to try to spot where a person's religious convictions might lead them to bad policy decisions. I don't want Muslims guiding our foreign and military policy, or Amish running the U.S. Marine Corps, or Christian Scientists making policy for the Centers for Disease Control. Or... Baptists... judging the Napa Valley Wine Festival?
But where a person's error is purely theological (rather than moral or policy-oriented), that's where the public scrutiny gives way to private liberty. It's with good reason that the Constitution repudiates any religious test for public office.
I would certainly rather have a pro-life pro-Consttution atheist (e.g. Nat Hentoff) for political office, than some jack-leg, pro-abort, anti-Constitutional "Catholic." Good evening to you, Reformer.
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.