Is EWTN still Catholic?
#31
(03-13-2010, 11:28 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It has a lot of meaning.  It's a bunch of liberals in wolves' clothing that hijacked the Republic party away from Conservatism.

I believe that Catholics aren't really supposed to be "conservative" or "liberal", but restorationist. The root of the word conservative simply means maintaining the status quo, hence today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals, and yesterday's conservatives were still liberal to another generation.
Reply
#32
(03-13-2010, 11:25 PM)anamchara Wrote: The term is not nonsensical and it is as apt to be used by the paleoconservative and paleolibertarian Right as by the Left.  Irving Kristol himself, dubbed the Godfather of Neoconservativism, seemed to embrace the term, though he called it more a "persuasion' than a political philosophy.   Neoconservativism is neither conservative nor pro-life.  It favors police-state encroachments on Constitutional liberty at home and warfare-state civilian slaughter abroad.  
Soooo ... I'm guessing you read a lot of Lew Rockwell. Did Irving Kristol serve in the Bush administration or on the board of EWTN? Where can I find the official definition of neoconservatism, other than at Lew Rockwell or your posts? Did President Bush ever call himself a neoconservative? Did Vice President Cheney or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? President Bush identified himself as a compassionate conservative, and he explained this term on numerous occasions in print and on television. No big mystery. It had very little to do with foreign policy. It was a political policy that stressed using traditionally conservative techniques and concepts in order to improve the general welfare of society. So this was a variant on traditional conservatism, which generally emphasizes the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. President Bush, in a limited way, used the federal goverment to address what he felt were serious social issues in need of action. The three programs he promoted and signed into law were No Child Left Behind, which required states receiving federal education dollars to test their students in some measurable way; Medicare Part D, which pays the cost of medication for sick old people; and the Faith-based Initiative, which removed the unconstitutional restriction on religious organizations from providing services for the federal government. Where's the neoconservatism in this? And regarding encroachments on Constitutional liberty, what are you talking about? Whose liberties have been encroached? Can you provide me with their names?
Reply
#33
"anamchara" Wrote:Neoconservativism is neither conservative nor pro-life.
If President Bush and the Republican Party are supposedly neoconservative, or controlled by neoconservatives, and you actually believe what you wroe above, how do you explain the eight years of virulent hate directly at the president by the Left and their neolibertarian fellow travelers, and how do you explain the fact that President Bush was the most pro-life president since the abomination of Row vs Wade? For eight years we heard the Left and their pals decry Bush's heartless conservatism, and now you've somehow come to believe he was neither conservative nor pro-life?
Reply
#34
(03-13-2010, 11:28 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Every correctional facility ought to have at least five iron maidens on hand, as well as 72 pairs of thumbscrews.
I don't believe this is a good idea. These have traditionally been used as instruments of torture, and torture is against the law in the United States..
Reply
#35
(03-13-2010, 11:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-13-2010, 11:11 PM)rj57 Wrote: The United States government should NOT be a Catholic government or a Protestant government or an Orthodox government. It should follow the laws of the United States Constitution that provide, among other things, the freedom for all people to worship as their conscience dictates -- Catholics, Protestants, and other religious people. With regard to the specific signs of our cultural sickness, these ought to be determined by the people, inspired hopefully be their Catholic faith, through their elected officials.
Well, that's what the Freemasons teach, but the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.
Can you show me where the Catholic Church teaches that the United States should be overthrown and become a Catholic country? Can you show me where the Magisterium teaches this? Doesn't say it here: Catechism.
Reply
#36
(03-13-2010, 11:35 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(03-13-2010, 11:28 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It has a lot of meaning.  It's a bunch of liberals in wolves' clothing that hijacked the Republic party away from Conservatism.

I believe that Catholics aren't really supposed to be "conservative" or "liberal", but restorationist. The root of the word conservative simply means maintaining the status quo, hence today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals, and yesterday's conservatives were still liberal to another generation.

It's maintaining the status quo where the status quo is relative to what was defined previously.   It doesn't mean retaining the status quo of two weeks ago.  Just like Traditional Catholicism doesn't mean returning to the tradition in 63 A.D.

But, yeah, Catholics don't need to be Conservative or Liberal, but really should just be Catholic and want a governance based on the principles of the Church.
Reply
#37
(03-14-2010, 12:13 AM)rj57 Wrote:
(03-13-2010, 11:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-13-2010, 11:11 PM)rj57 Wrote: The United States government should NOT be a Catholic government or a Protestant government or an Orthodox government. It should follow the laws of the United States Constitution that provide, among other things, the freedom for all people to worship as their conscience dictates -- Catholics, Protestants, and other religious people. With regard to the specific signs of our cultural sickness, these ought to be determined by the people, inspired hopefully be their Catholic faith, through their elected officials.
Well, that's what the Freemasons teach, but the Catholic Church teaches otherwise.
Can you show me where the Catholic Church teaches that the United States should be overthrown and become a Catholic country? Can you show me where the Magisterium teaches this? Doesn't say it here: Catechism.

I can't show that, nor did I make that claim.  However, I can show where the Church says governments need to be subordinate to the Church and the separation of Church and State has been condemned.  Are you interested in that?

Your cite points to this:

Quote:CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNITY

1877 The vocation of humanity is to show forth the image of God and to be transformed into the image of the Father's only Son. This vocation takes a personal form since each of us is called to enter into the divine beatitude; it also concerns the human community as a whole.

What, pray tell, does that have to do with anything?
Reply
#38
(03-14-2010, 12:15 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-13-2010, 11:35 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(03-13-2010, 11:28 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It has a lot of meaning.  It's a bunch of liberals in wolves' clothing that hijacked the Republic party away from Conservatism.

I believe that Catholics aren't really supposed to be "conservative" or "liberal", but restorationist. The root of the word conservative simply means maintaining the status quo, hence today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals, and yesterday's conservatives were still liberal to another generation.

It's maintaining the status quo where the status quo is relative to what was defined previously.   It doesn't mean retaining the status quo of two weeks ago.  Just like Traditional Catholicism doesn't mean returning to the tradition in 63 A.D.

But, yeah, Catholics don't need to be Conservative or Liberal, but really should just be Catholic and want a governance based on the principles of the Church.

True so far as it goes, but I would say from a trad perspective, if one is going to vote for a major party in for example the United States, the abortion issue alone prohibits support of Democratic candidates.

Whether or not one is actually GOING to vote for a major party (or vote at all), is a different story, I guess.
Reply
#39
"anamchara" Wrote:Because words like "torture" should mean more than trusting Bush's, Cheney's and Obama's "objective" definitions, which clearly have nothing to do with the objective reality experienced on the ground by civilians in, say, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Next thing you'll tell me is that St. Ambrose was relying on a subjective definition of terrorism when he held the Emperor Theodocius to account for his wholesale slaughter of Corinthians. 

The natural law trumps the State's "law."  What kind of a conservative believes otherwise?
Not Bush and Cheney -- United States law, removed from rank political partisanship. The definition predates the THREE enhanced interrogations. United States laws are written by representatives of the people of the United States. The representatives and their staff use carefully defined language to convey the concepts contained in the laws. Those who vote on these laws rely on the words used to understand the laws. Frequently a bill will be opposed based on the inclusion or exclusion of a single word or phrase. How could Congress have used a false definition of torture when their definition was and is consistent with the dictionary definition? The dictionary definition is clear. The United States legal definition is clear. What is not clear is your understanding of that definition. Apparently you want that definition to be something else.

Can you prove to me that the United States committed war crimes -- which is what you are alleging -- and can you provide your sources of information? I assume you did not participate directly in these attrocities.
Reply
#40
(03-13-2010, 11:35 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(03-13-2010, 11:28 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It has a lot of meaning.  It's a bunch of liberals in wolves' clothing that hijacked the Republic party away from Conservatism.

I believe that Catholics aren't really supposed to be "conservative" or "liberal", but restorationist. The root of the word conservative simply means maintaining the status quo, hence today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals, and yesterday's conservatives were still liberal to another generation.
Conservatives have a different understanding of the term "conservatism". It is not merely a desire to maintain the status quo. We trace our philosophical roots to Edmund Burke and his writings on the American and French Revolutions, to the American Founding Fathers and their grand legacy, and to other writers and thinkers who shared a similar world view. It's counterpart, modern liberalism (distinct from classical liberalism) traces its roots back to Rousseau and the French Revolution, Karl Marx, all the way to today's secular humanists, socialists, and so-called progressives. Another more accurate term for liberalism is statism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)