Voting: Abortion and Contraception
#51
Lumine, assuming you're serious-- you realize you'd be committing grave sin by voting for Obama, yes?

You must not (realize that) if you are going to vote for him.  You must also not be aware that Mr Obama not only helps organize, orchestrate and promote the genocide of unborn children but he does the same thing for sodomy. 

Now that you are not ignorant of these facts, you cannot vote for him and be a good Catholic.  Do the right thing.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#52
[video=youtube]gwFIEprF_9Y[/video]
Reply
#53
Quote: The other party has more Christian social justice issues that they back,
  :LOL: :LOL:

OK.  Here's some CATHOLIC social justice for you.  If you want to vote for the candidate that espouses this, then that would be prudent:
Quote: "it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms."(14) It is a duty,
not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law."

But if you are talking about post Vatican II teaching, then yes, Obama is the candidate for the marxist infiltrated Church.

If Romney wins, the REQUIREMENT that you PERSONALLY FUND abortions will be removed.  I'll be honest with you, I still have not decided what I'm going to do if Obama wins and that requirement remains.  That's a tough one.  For that one reason I hope Romney wins.  Otherwise you have to choose between funding abortions or going to jail.
Reply
#54
Quote: The other party has more Christian social justice issues that they back,
  :LOL: :LOL:


Whenever  I hear about social justice, it is from dissidents, Modernists, and CINOs. What happened about saving souls, fighting for Church doctrine and opposing the Satanic murder of infants prevalent in society?
Reply
#55
I do not see how taking the Church's social teaching seriously makes one a dissident or modernist, nor do I see how accepting the teachings of Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and other atheist Jews who thought that Christianity was a disease that needed to be eradicated is a more orthodox stance. Certainly, Christians in the Patristic and medieval period were both concerned with establishing a just society. Read someone like St. Ambrose--who thought that holding onto excess food, money, or clothing that could be given to the poor was theft--or William Langland, who was very concerned with what we would call social justice and the just society. Also, consider the fact that in the Middle Ages usurers were considered to be enemies of all mankind. For medieval Christians, one could hardly commit a deadlier sin.

Ironically, this whole attitude shows an acceptance of secularization. It is okay to focus on sexual sins because these are purely private issues, but never talk about economic issues because we all know the Church shouldn't involve herself in public affairs!
Reply
#56
(10-19-2012, 11:43 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I do not see how taking the Church's social teaching seriously makes one a dissident or modernist, nor do I see how accepting the teachings of Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and other atheist Jews who thought that Christianity was a disease that needed to be eradicated is a more orthodox stance. Certainly, Christians in the Patristic and medieval period were both concerned with establishing a just society. Read someone like St. Ambrose--who thought that holding onto excess food, money, or clothing that could be given to the poor was theft--or William Langland, who was very concerned with what we would call social justice and the just society. Also, consider the fact that in the Middle Ages usurers were considered to be enemies of all mankind. For medieval Christians, one could hardly commit a deadlier sin.

Ironically, this whole attitude shows an acceptance of secularization. It is okay to focus on sexual sins because these are purely private issues, but never talk about economic issues because we all know the Church shouldn't involve herself in public affairs!

Ludwig von Mises was the close economic advisor of Chancellor Fr. Ignaz Seipel, Engelbert Dollfuss, and Otto von Habsburg - all great Catholic leaders.  Since you are the greatest apologist of totalitarian socialism here, it must be a great comfort for you to know that the Nazis eradicated the influence of this "atheist Jew" on Catholic Austria. 
Reply
#57
(10-19-2012, 11:43 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I do not see how taking the Church's social teaching seriously makes one a dissident or modernist, nor do I see how accepting the teachings of Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and other atheist Jews who thought that Christianity was a disease that needed to be eradicated is a more orthodox stance. Certainly, Christians in the Patristic and medieval period were both concerned with establishing a just society. Read someone like St. Ambrose--who thought that holding onto excess food, money, or clothing that could be given to the poor was theft--or William Langland, who was very concerned with what we would call social justice and the just society. Also, consider the fact that in the Middle Ages usurers were considered to be enemies of all mankind. For medieval Christians, one could hardly commit a deadlier sin.

Ironically, this whole attitude shows an acceptance of secularization. It is okay to focus on sexual sins because these are purely private issues, but never talk about economic issues because we all know the Church shouldn't involve herself in public affairs!

Oh, I was accused of being a secret Marxist out to infiltrate the Church on Facebook because I actually take seriously the Social Teachings of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI! :LOL:
Reply
#58
Maybe I should have been more specific in that there is a difference between the social justice advanced and taken up by Modernists and the true social justice which empathized  on the social reign of Christ.

Regarding Capitalism, Pope Pius XI stated  in his encyclical QUADRAGESIMO ANNO
that Capitalism, unlike socialism and Marxism( advanced by Modernists under the guise "social justice" ) is not inherently bad itself:
“With all energy Leo XIII sought to adjust this economic system according to the norms of the right order; hence it is evident that this system is not condemned in itself. And surely it is not of its own nature vicious. But it does violate right order when capital hires workers, that is, the non-owning working class, with a view to and under such terms that it directs business and even the whole economic system according to its own will and advantage, scorning the human dignity of the workers, the social character of economic activity and social justice itself, and the common good” (n. 101).

It is up to the Church to thus correct the excesses of Capitalism in order for it to be a true Catholic system. However, this is not advanced by man churchmen today, as proven in Latin America.
Reply
#59
(10-20-2012, 12:05 AM)PeterII Wrote:
(10-19-2012, 11:43 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I do not see how taking the Church's social teaching seriously makes one a dissident or modernist, nor do I see how accepting the teachings of Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and other atheist Jews who thought that Christianity was a disease that needed to be eradicated is a more orthodox stance. Certainly, Christians in the Patristic and medieval period were both concerned with establishing a just society. Read someone like St. Ambrose--who thought that holding onto excess food, money, or clothing that could be given to the poor was theft--or William Langland, who was very concerned with what we would call social justice and the just society. Also, consider the fact that in the Middle Ages usurers were considered to be enemies of all mankind. For medieval Christians, one could hardly commit a deadlier sin.

Ironically, this whole attitude shows an acceptance of secularization. It is okay to focus on sexual sins because these are purely private issues, but never talk about economic issues because we all know the Church shouldn't involve herself in public affairs!

Ludwig von Mises was the close economic advisor of Chancellor Fr. Ignaz Seipel, Engelbert Dollfuss, and Otto von Habsburg - all great Catholic leaders.  Since you are the greatest apologist of totalitarian socialism here, it must be a great comfort for you to know that the Nazis eradicated the influence of this "atheist Jew" on Catholic Austria.   

Dollfuss is commonly considered to have been a Christian corporatist. If Ludwig von Mises really was his closest economic advisor, it doesn't appear that he had much of an influence on him.
Reply
#60
(10-20-2012, 01:08 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Dollfuss is commonly considered to have been a Christian corporatist. If Ludwig von Mises really was his closest economic advisor, it doesn't appear that he had much of an influence on him.

My thought exactly!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)