Posted on 10/22/2010 3:28:22 PM PDT by NYer
Election ping!
1. Who said it had to be?
2. That's what a big tent is about... where are we supposed to go, the Democratic Party?!
There is absolutely nothing “radical” about the Tea Party Movement!
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God that which is God’s. This is the separation that Jefferson referred to.
Honestly, I only skimmed it. But I did note something in there about “our duty to the poor.” That tells me it’s written from a Social Teaching standpoint that tends toward Socialism. I see it as trying to drive a wedge into the Catholic vote. If we actually supported our Catholic faith, no party would dare oppose our values... and America would live up to its founding. Our enemies know this.
Empty headed mush concluding with this howler.
Our rights are based in liberty (remember that whole "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" thing?). With that liberty, we are called by our faith to a responsibility to our fellow man.
When our rights become based on our responsibility, we will have Communism.
I must have been asleep at Mass for about 40 years. When did the Catholic Church begin teaching that governments are supposed to be our brother’s keeper? I seem to remember we as individual Catholics are to be our brother’s keepers. I do not remember reading anything in the New Testament where Jesus said, “Oh, just let the government steal from everyone it can to reward those who are in need.”
Professor Shenk and anyone else teaching this apostacy need to be excommunicated.
I don’t see anyone asking this question: Is the Democrat Party in sync with Catholic teaching? I think the answer to that question is a big fat NO!
Shneck does not understand his faith. Sirico does. Sirico was a leftist in his youth. He had an intellectually-inspired conversion and became a priest.
To say I have an obligation the mow my lawn is to say society has an obligation to mow my lawn...Hey, I LIKE where this is going!!!
Shneck does not understand his faith. Sirico does. Sirico was a leftist in his youth. He had an intellectually-inspired conversion and became a priest.
Here it is:
The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature’s God." Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty": an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities toward the family and toward the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.
The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, makes its own the moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic. Their commitment to build a free society with liberty and justice for all must be constantly renewed if the United States is to fulfill the destiny to which the Founders pledged their "lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor."
John Paul II
While I am not Catholic, I do understand the actual teaching regarding so called "social justice." The neglected and almost unknown principle of subsidarity
subsidiarity [səbˌsɪdɪˈærɪtɪ]n
1. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over
This, of course, flies in the face of the trends that date back to 1865 in America and have accelerated to warp speed in the 20th century as the centralizers win every battle they fight.
I ask it... as publicly as I can.
many catholics we know are libs.
so, no.
I’m not Catholic. However, here’s an article that may help iron-out the conundrum:
Rethinking Romans by Greg A. Dixon
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22417
It’s an article from 2001 but I think it may be helpful
Did I miss the part where he defines "radical extremists"?
I hope not!
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.