Catholic bishops’ guide on how to vote now available online

posted at 2:40 pm on November 16, 2007 by Allahpundit

Universal health care, opposition to the death penalty, moral objections to preventive war: it’s all here, reinforcing a point I’ve made before in our comment battles about how Christianity has always seemed more liberal to me in substance than conservative. I’ve been derided for my supposed ignorance in taking that position but tell it to the bishops.

May I offer you paragraph 83?

bishop.jpg

As No More Spin says, good luck squaring that last sentence with what precedes it. Before the left celebrates divine victory, though, I’d urge our readers one and all to follow the link to the document and read the following five paragraphs: 22-23 and 34-36 (especially 35). If Catholic voters took this to heart, there’d be nary a Democrat elected throughout the land.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

what depths of absurdity the comments of MB4, TheSitRep, and now ThackerAgency have sunk to.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Hey, TheSitRep and ThackerAgency, did you notice how I came in ahead of you guys? And I even got another mention in the next paragraph!

Eat your hearts out.

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Eat your hearts out.

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 6:14 PM

You are the man!
I hope I don’t bring condemnation unto you when I say,
“I really enjoy reading your post”
You have the intellect of a Steve Pinker or a Chris Hitchens.

TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 6:19 PM

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 6:10 PM

LOL

Good point!

leepro on November 16, 2007 at 6:20 PM

I don’t recall what you said Connie. I did read all the threads here though.

ThackerAgency on November 16, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Your comment here.
My reply here.
Connie comment here.
Original posting here

geckomon on November 16, 2007 at 6:20 PM

His kingdom was not of this earth.

My point exactly. And that is the reason comparing him to modern, earthly lefties is questionable, to say the least.

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 6:47 PM

TheDoucheRep, that number is listed here:
http://www.dirtcheapcaps.com/main.htm
and here:
http://www.datareclaim.com/

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Call that number I will answer.

TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy, founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early third century BC. It proved to be a popular and durable philosophy, with a following throughout Greece and the Roman Empire from its founding until all the schools of philosophy were ordered closed by the Christian emperor Justinian I in the year AD 529 because of their pagan character[1]. The core doctrine of Stoicism concerns cosmic Determinism and human freedom, and the belief that virtue is to maintain a Will that is in accord with nature.

…virtue is the sole good; such things as health, happiness, possessions, are of no account. Since virtue resides in the will, everything really good or bad in a man’s life depends only upon himself… A tyrant may put him in prison… sentenced to death, but he can die nobly… Therefore every man has perfect freedom, provided he emancipates himself from mundane desires.[2]

Stoic ethics and virtues

The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word stoic has come to mean unemotional or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from passion by following reason. But the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles by developing clear judgment and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

Speakup on November 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM

First you defend your fabricated “facts” about the Catholic Church by calling them “opinion,” and then, in almost the same breath, you say that you cannot “allow” me mine?

You don’t need balls to see a hypocrite!

leepro on November 16, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Look Suzy, the point is, TheSitRep has a habit of bomb throwing and trolling, something I don’t do. He drops by threads to lob insults just to piss people off most of the time.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM

He traveled with a FORMER tax collector.
Matthew 9:9

OhEssYouCowboys on November 16, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Ah, got me. Jesus’ selection of Matthew was yet another example of his embracing of outcasts since tax collectors were a hated profession. He allowed his reputation with the religious hierarchy to be damaged by ministering to Samaritans, the sick, the poor, prostitutes, adulterers and miscellaneous sinners. I believe he even said that prostitutes and tax collectors will enter the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees–which had to tick them off.

I’m all for leaving the Bible and ministers and priests out of public policy. However, if you want to use the Bible–and by Bible we really mean the life of Jesus Christ (unless we want to debate the OT)–you would need to think through whether Jesus’ attention to the downtrodden is reflected in your policy positions.

dedalus on November 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM

He drops by threads to lob insults just to piss people off most of the time.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM

It’s a tough and thankless job, but somebody has to do it.

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 7:59 PM

geckomon on November 16, 2007 at 6:20 PM

OK, I went to bed after I posted that and did not read the comments. Threads have been dramatically anti-’evangelical’ at this blog. They talk about Dobson as though he is some Pope-like figure where we care what he says. They bashed Falwell as some crazy person as well (who was instrumental in much of the Reagan and Bush conservative movement – though I disagree with preachers getting involved in the political arena he was a good man).

And yes there is plenty of data that shows Catholics vote predominately Democrat – Kennedy, Kerry . . . etc.

All of the bashing was because these Protestants did not want to vote for someone because they are pro-choice. I could not understand the Protestant bashing because Rudy would not get votes from Catholics (in the same manner that Kerry did not) primarily BECAUSE OF his pro-choice stance.

FINALLY we have a couple of posts ridiculing the Catholic positions and I appreciate the balance. But in the ‘evangelical’ posts, I did not see any Catholics coming to the defense of the position that they believe in too. . . but I saw a whole lot of piling on of people saying ‘he’s going to give the election to Hillary if he doesn’t vote for Rudy’.

Catholics that I know have a habit of condemning people to hell. I find that distasteful which is why I am NOT Catholic. I prefer to focus on my love for Christ based on Christ’s love for me without concerning myself with whether I go to heaven or hell. I don’t really care because I am so thankful for Jesus and my Creator that whatever His will for me is is fine with me. I love Him for giving me the opportunity to live a great life in a great country with a great family on a great planet. NON DENOMINATIONAL planet.

What happens after I die is not why I am a Christian.

ThackerAgency on November 16, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Jesus of Nazareth was a Leftie folks, and a loving one indeed, buy it, love it, accept it, own it.

AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM

What large government agency did he start? What group of people did be say are not responsible for their lives? What group of employees did he say should not be paid for performance? What industry did he say should be run by the government?

pedestrian on November 16, 2007 at 8:05 PM

What group of employees did he say should not be paid for performance?

His apostles?

dedalus on November 16, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Look Suzy, the point is, TheSitRep has a habit of bomb throwing and trolling, something I don’t do. He drops by threads to lob insults just to piss people off most of the time.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM

unless its about catholics or how gays have no place in the republican party. but whatever. you’re a “pure republican,” i shouldn’t criticize.

its vintage duh on November 16, 2007 at 9:01 PM

unless its about catholics or how gays have no place in the republican party. but whatever. you’re a “pure republican,” i shouldn’t criticize.

its vintage duh on November 16, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Hey, genius, STFU unless you know what you’re talking about… The topic is “everyone wants to ban TheSitRep”, which I didn’t even agree with, but I saw the point because he’s a total bomb throwing troll and exists to be an agitator. Someone tried to lump me in with that crowd, simply because they didn’t like my opinions in this thread, which was retarded. Now you’re retarded, because you’re doing the same thing. I’m not just here lobbing insults and ignoring any arguments. I made my points (whether you like them or not) and others responded, and I responded to them. Same with the gay threads. I don’t come in and say “gays are icky!” and refuse to debate. I give my opinion and argue with people who choose to engage me.

Thanks for playing, moron.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 9:13 PM

I give my opinion and argue with people who choose to engage me.

Thanks for playing, moron.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 9:13 PM

;) if im the one who’s moronic, then i am very proud to be a moron.

its vintage duh on November 16, 2007 at 11:14 PM

OK, I went to bed after I posted that and did not read the comments. Threads have been dramatically anti-’evangelical’ at this blog.

(All due respect AP) By a self-proclaimed atheist, not a Catholic.

They talk about Dobson as though he is some Pope-like figure where we care what he says. They bashed Falwell as some crazy person as well (who was instrumental in much of the Reagan and Bush conservative movement – though I disagree with preachers getting involved in the political arena he was a good man).

The truth in the above is the anti-Christian comments, but from whom?

And yes there is plenty of data that shows Catholics vote predominately Democrat – Kennedy, Kerry . . . etc.

I asked for stats or source, fair enough request. Naming Kerry and Kennedy is not proof of the demographic of the voter.

All of the bashing was because these Protestants did not want to vote for someone because they are pro-choice. I could not understand the Protestant bashing because Rudy would not get votes from Catholics (in the same manner that Kerry did not) primarily BECAUSE OF his pro-choice stance.

Again, who were the Catholics doing the bashing? (and your point about the election outcome for Kerry contradicts your Catholics always vote Democrat theory)

FINALLY we have a couple of posts ridiculing the Catholic positions and I appreciate the balance.

I’m disturbed by your judgement. Where is the balance in having a fellow christian “bashed?”

But in the ‘evangelical’ posts, I did not see any Catholics coming to the defense of the position that they believe in too. . . but I saw a whole lot of piling on of people saying ‘he’s going to give the election to Hillary if he doesn’t vote for Rudy’.

So, this moved you to vent on the Catholic religion? I don’t understand the logic.

Catholics that I know have a habit of condemning people to hell. I find that distasteful which is why I am NOT Catholic.

Now that you know me as a Catholic, rest assure , I do not condemn you. The truth is only God can condemn anyone to hell, and the Catholic Church taught me that. It is not up to me, or my pastor, my Bishop or my Pope. The main point is it seems you judge a religion on the sins of some members?

I prefer to focus on my love for Christ based on Christ’s love for me without concerning myself with whether I go to heaven or hell.

Then did you lose your focus when you decided to speak untruths about Catholicism? If I was focused on my love of Christ, I would find it very hard to denigrate another person. I learned that from the Catholic Church.

I don’t really care because I am so thankful for Jesus and my Creator that whatever His will for me is is fine with me. I love Him for giving me the opportunity to live a great life in a great country with a great family on a great planet. NON DENOMINATIONAL planet.

Fundamentally, that is where we differ. I know from the bible and my Catholic education that Jesus created only one Church and not a splinter of Churches. We do not condemn people, we do not worship Mary, and we do not ignore the bible. We do not think that other Christian denominations are barred from heaven. And we certainly do not bash other religions. I have been to Mass almost every Sunday of my life including Holy Days and Holidays and I have yet to sit through a Homily that preached to me the evils of Protestants, nor bashed other non-denominational churches, or denigrated other Christian groups. It won’t happen because it is not needed. Why do you need to?

What happens after I die is not why I am a Christian.

I implore you to reflect on your last statement. Christianity is about salvation for eternity. Not just the here and now. What happens after you leave this world is why Jesus died for us. Ask your minister or spiritual advisor. I’m sure they will tell you the same.

Again, I remind you that this guide, written by the Catholic Bishops of America, is for Catholics. Not Buddhists, Muslims, or anyone else. It was a reminder for the faithful in the Catholic Church about what defines our religion.

geckomon on November 16, 2007 at 11:14 PM

;) if im the one who’s moronic, then i am very proud to be a moron.

its vintage duh on November 16, 2007 at 11:14 PM

What’s funny is that YOU, who came here to attack me, are now behaving like a troll with your drive-bys which contain no actual argument to anything I’ve said. Seriously, STFU.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Seriously, STFU.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 11:17 PM

yeahhhh, about that. nah.

but im just glad all GOPers dont hold your views, or wed be a verrrrry tiny tent party, instead of big tent.

its vintage duh on November 16, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Troll on.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 11:49 PM

I wonder if the Catholic church is urging the Italians to throw open their borders to illegal immigrants from the middle east?

jaime on November 17, 2007 at 12:43 AM

The bishops, the Catechism, the Bible, conscience, and reason: So many authorities are perplexing.

Kralizec on November 17, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Kralizec on November 17, 2007 at 12:50 AM

not to mention Our Holy Father of the Constitution Ron Paul.

its vintage duh on November 17, 2007 at 3:36 AM

Speaking as a Catholic Christian, this was baffling coming from the usually thoughtful, and fellow Christian, ThackerAgency:

I prefer to focus on my love for Christ based on Christ’s love for me without concerning myself with whether I go to heaven or hell. I don’t really care because I am so thankful for Jesus and my Creator that whatever His will for me is is fine with me. I love Him for giving me the opportunity to live a great life in a great country with a great family on a great planet. NON DENOMINATIONAL planet.
What happens after I die is not why I am a Christian.

ThackerAgency on November 16, 2007 at 7:59 PM

As geckomon pointed out already,

geckomon on November 16, 2007 at 11:14 PM

why do you think Jesus became a man and died for us?
Your post sounds like He did all that so we could live in the good old U.S. of A. for a few short years with our nice families, (but they better be “NON DENOMINATIONAL” families I suppose). Whaaa….??

ThackerAgency, I respect you but I’m sorry that it isn’t clear to you, for whatever reason, that the Catholic Church was planned and predicted by Jesus and built by the Holy Spirit working through Jesus’ apostles, and its teachings DID and DO honor Him first. (And no, Mary is not worshipped, only honored as the mother He chose for Himself and His first, best imitate-able disciple.)

Your latest comment, though, doesn’t sound like you’re putting Jesus first. Heaven is nothing more than spending eternity with God. And this life will be over very, very soon. I personally can’t wait, as I’ll be MORE alive in Heaven than I am now.

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 7:32 AM

Wait. A dang second.. I have reviewed the transcripts.

Except for razing csdeven for his Ron Paul affiliation I can’t find one post where I have insulted or attacked any user at Hotair. And I agree with most of csdeven’s thoughts.
I just don’t think Ron Paul is the Messiah. ha ha.

I will intentionally insult Religious dogmas including Islamism, Christianity, Judaism, Liberalism, Environmentalism, socialism, Marxism, etc.
I think people that support their ideas with faulty documents such as the Koran, the Bible, The IPCC report, or The communist manifesto are objectively handicapped and quickly become unhinged when you suggest their system of faith is unfounded.

I have read in this very thread people being called moron, coward, “D”-bag and I can’t find in all my post where I have personally attacked another user in such an “unchristian” like manner. Hey WWJD? I too will turn the other cheek.

What would a blog be like if everyone posted in lock step?

TheSitRep on November 17, 2007 at 8:05 AM

And in honor of “the quoting one” on this site:

“We are afraid of the jeer about ‘pie in the sky,’ and of being told that we are trying to ‘escape’ from the duty of making a happy world here and now into dreams of a happy world elsewhere. But either there is a ‘pie in the sky’ or there is not. If there is not, then Christianity is false, for this doctrine is woven into its whole fabric. If there is, then this truth, like any other, must be faced, whether it is useful at political meetings or no. (emphasis added) Again, we are afraid that Heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested.

It is not so. Heaven offers nothing that the mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives. A man’s love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition, seeks to enjoy its object.”
C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (the book is about why God allows suffering)

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 8:12 AM

Its stupid, I can see the opposition to the death penalty, give whoever enough time to pray some rosaries before they get judged in the next round.

God does not forgive attrition. The death penalty is wrong. I’ve never understood why this is a liberal vs. conservative issue.

It can’t be denied, however, that Catholics are generally more “liberal” when it comes to immigration.

Why does everyone on this blog think that American Catholics represent Catholics worldwide? What about Catholics in Nigeria? Are they liberal when it comes to immigration and is that attributable to Catholicism?

aengus on November 17, 2007 at 10:27 AM

I’ve made before in our comment battles about how Christianity has always seemed more liberal to me in substance than conservative.

Many folks confuse Roman Catholicism with Christianity.

AZ_Redneck on November 17, 2007 at 10:37 AM

… Catholic Church was planned and predicted by Jesus …

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 7:32 AM

Please cite that passage.

why do you think Jesus became a man and died for us?

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 7:32 AM

Because the fallen nature of man required a penal atonining sacrifice.

AZ_Redneck on November 17, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Because the fallen nature of man required a penal atonining sacrifice.

AZ_Redneck on November 17, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Yes, but a penal atoning sacrifice– for what? My point for ThackerAgency (and anyone else interested) was: Jesus’ end goal for us is not a United States life with a nice family for seventy years, give or take. He came, died and rose again to save us from eternal separation from God, and for eternal union with Him.

(Please see below for my answer to your other question.)

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Please cite that passage.

AZ_Redneck on November 17, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Well, there are loads of references in the New Testament to the Christian Church but let’s start with just one from the mouth of our Savior Himself:

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). Jesus did plan and predict a church comprised of those following Him. This church was intended to be one in belief, faith and morals (cf. Eph 4:5, 1 Peter 3:8 and especially–here’s Jesus again–John 17:11:–”that they may be one as you and I are one”).

That’s pretty darn united, and it means also totally united in beliefs because God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Jesus Himself wants us all to be one.

God is NOT the author of all this division within Christianity. There is supposed to be one church only.

This one church was first referred to as “Catholic” very early on; we have a letter from Ignatius of Antioch preserved from circa 110 A.D. which says, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (meaning it was already an established expression that early on–”catholic” simply means “universal”).

Hope that helps.

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Just as an aside, I really wish more people in general (both in real life and here) would take 1 Peter 3:15-16 to heart. Have certainly been guilty of not being gentle with others at times, and am workin’ on that…!

“[S]anctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. ”

Not generalizing here, but at least in my own experience, I’ve seen more Catholic Christians emphasizing the “gentleness and reverence” (for other faiths) part, and more non-Catholic Christians emphasizing the “always be ready to give an explanation” part. But BOTH are needed.

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 11:31 AM

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 11:23 AM

The Roman Catholic Church interprets Jesus to say “You are Peter, and upon you , Peter, I will build my church.” That is, Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. A reader of Matthew’s Gospel in the original Greek text would not have concluded the same.

Though Peter’s name means rock (petros), Jesus did not say, “You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build my church.” What he said was “You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church.”

The work petra is a feminine noun referring to a mass of rock. In Matt 7:24,25, petra is used to refer to the bedrock upon which a wise man built a house. In Matt 27:60, petra is used to describe Jesus’s tomb that was carved from solid rock (i.e., bedrock).

The work Petros, is masculine and refers to a detached stone. One with size that might be picked up and tossed.

What Jesus said to Peter would be translated “You are Stone, and upon this bedrock I will build My church”. The choice of words indicates that the ‘rock’ that the church would be built upon is something other than Peter.

Aside from this, review the context before Matt 16:18. Note the passage is not about Peter, but about Jesus.

“Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” asks Jesus.

“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” responds Peter.

Jesus then answers, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The rock is the Son of the living God.

Also see 1 Peter 2:6-8 where Peter confirms Jesus is the rock.

“For who is God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none.” Isaiah 44:8

AZ_Redneck on November 17, 2007 at 2:12 PM

*sigh*

AZ Redneck, I must say, I guessed you were going to start talking about Peter. You asked me, “where is the citation that says Jesus predicted and planned for a church?” I gave it to you. Instead you began talking about another issue. Just wanted to point out to you that that is what you are doing.

I would love to discuss Peter = Rock with you. Here’s the short answer to your second issue. Jesus did not speak Greek to Peter. He spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, Kepha (the word Jesus used) means large rock. Jesus said in Aramaic, “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha (= Cephas) I will build My Church. (In translation to Greek the force is not there because petra is a feminine noun and petros is the masculine equivalent, except the masculine noun means a smaller stone. But Jesus spoke Aramaic and He unquestionably called Peter “Rock” and as long we are looking elsewhere in Scripture, I will simply note that whenever God gives a person a new name (Jacob to Israel, Abram to Abraham, etc) it changes the person’s status in salvation history. No one deserves this new status, but the Lord gives His gifts as He will. It is not “adoration” of Peter to merely note that God chose an undeserving man as the first leader of the Church.

I find it interesting that I answered your first question, but you did not respond to my answer. Instead you brought up another issue. I have just responded to that (albeit briefly); I could go on but am going out shortly. I suspect instead of responding to my response, you are going to bring up yet another issue. I only say that because that is usually the way it is when I talk about Catholicism with an anti-Catholic Christian. I hope I’m wrong in your case.

Gotta go now but why don’t you tool around the following website:

http://www.catholic.com

This is the Catholic Answers website and perhaps you will find it useful for some of the questions you have about the Catholic Christian faith. And I’ll check in later tonight.

Hope you have a good evening.

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 3:25 PM

http://www.catholic.com

This is the Catholic Answers website and perhaps you will find it useful for some of the questions you have about the Catholic Christian faith. And I’ll check in later tonight.

Hope you have a good evening.

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Not to mention they have a live 2 hour show (then podcasted)where anybody from all religions are invited to call in with their questions or disagreements. Check the website for times.

geckomon on November 17, 2007 at 4:37 PM

… And thank you inviolet for your insight.

geckomon on November 17, 2007 at 4:38 PM

The bishops, the Catechism, the Bible, conscience, and reason: So many authorities are perplexing.

Kralizec on November 17, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Didn’t you see, unified theory is upon us.

Speakup on November 17, 2007 at 6:21 PM

?!

You started with this …

… Catholic Church was planned and predicted by Jesus …

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 7:32 AM

I asked for you to cite the passage.

You followed up with this …

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church
(Matthew 16:18, emphasis added).
inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 11:23 AM

This is the typical verse used errantly by the Roman Catholic Church to stake it’s claim. Hence, my response.

It is recorded that Jesus spoke Aramaic. However, the common language of the time was Koine Greek. The original manuscripts are in Greek, not Aramaic. It was on to being a dead language in Matthew’s time.

The remainder of your response is ecumenical in nature taking additional text out of context.

I’m not sure what is meant by anti-Catholic, per se, but yes, I do believe Roman Catholicism is heresy.

I’ll catch up with you on another thread sometime. My day job gets in the way of spending too much time here lately.

AZ_Redneck on November 17, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Why isn’t my Catholic Church doing more for the illegals in say..their home countries? The Catholic Church is very strong in Mexico..why is it that they can’t help them there?

Pam on November 17, 2007 at 8:31 PM

AZ_Redneck, OK, see you around the threads I guess. Have a good evening and God bless.

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 9:57 PM

I should have added, for anyone else who may be interested in this exchange:
the gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Luke, Mark and John were written in Greek.

inviolet on November 17, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Why isn’t my Catholic Church doing more for the illegals in say..their home countries? The Catholic Church is very strong in Mexico..why is it that they can’t help them there?

Pam on November 17, 2007 at 8:31 PM

What if there is a correlation between catholic vs. Protestant saturation and a countries GDP?

I figured I had better do some research prior to posting this idea lest Catholic rage boy scourge me.
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Robin.M.Grier-1/religion.pdf

This is a topic under study. It is a good question.

TheSitRep on November 17, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Guys, its stupid posts like these that make me want to stop reading HA. A few points:

• Catholics- myself included – have every right to heed or ignore the edicts and recommendations of our Church. You don’t see the Church sending squads of altar boys and seminarians to the houses of those who claim to be one of their own and fail to follow church doctrine.
• AP: with all due respect to your opinion and personal choices), since when has this board been all about you? You are beginning to alienate people. I am highly opinionated but I know when to keep my opinions to myself when I’m trying to advance a cause (in this case, conservatism.)
• Finally, when we (collectively, the audience) expend efforts on issues that frankly have no bearing on our common good, aren’t we just giving fodder to those who ridicule us?

Just my $0.02…

rightg33k on November 18, 2007 at 12:58 AM

It’s like Mort Kondracke. Infinitely reasonable, ultimately useless.

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Wow that was a good one

I submit that very few have called ICE or other immigration authorities because they feel the second principle, human dignity and caring for the poor outweighs the rule of law. They would much rather have a friend and neighbor who they can help improve their life and help them through hard times than the satisfaction of knowing they sent “one of those damn illegals” back to Mexico

1. Giving a man the cement laying job that belonged to another man is not ‘caring for the poor’ it is robbing Peter to pay Paul

2. such complicity is satisfying only if you can pretend you did not hurt the man who was robbed. Does it feel good to steal the patrimony of a nation and hand it over to another nation?

This generally means to make legal immigration more attractive and to ensure that businesses and other entities are not exploiting these people

No one has to make legal immigration attractive. There is a long waiting list for legal immigration

We should be punishing businesses who hire illegals not watchdogging them

Crooked businesses that use illegals force honest businessmen to use illegals to compete. So-called caring people who facilitate the illegal aliens are helping to destroy our American competitive system and killing the job market for citizens

Meanwhile the illegals are tapping our welfare system to death and this system is paid for by the dying American working class which is rewarded by being crowded out by a growing pack of non-assimilating foreigners who are loyal to the Mexican ideal, not the America ideal.

entagor on November 18, 2007 at 2:51 AM

1. Giving a man the cement laying job that belonged to another man is not ‘caring for the poor’ it is robbing Peter to pay Paul

2. such complicity is satisfying only if you can pretend you did not hurt the man who was robbed. Does it feel good to steal the patrimony of a nation and hand it over to another nation?

Both of your premises assume that a job is something one particular individual “deserves” and that by showing Christian compassion to a man who is, for the sake of argument, illegal you have forcibly taken the job from someone else to give it to another.

I had no idea the Catholic Church had enough power to override the employment practices of businesses.

Catholics are morally called to show compassion to everyone, not just the law-abiding. There is a massive prison ministry in the Church. Some would say we’re wasting our time on lost causes instead of helping the people we should be. The Catholic Church disagrees.

And again, Catholic voters should support a crackdown on businesses that exploit illegal aliens by not paying them a fair wage or otherwise mistreating them. Bu when a poor man comes up to a soup kitchen it’s not like we can say, “Apologias Senor Sanchez, tu es illegale! No sopa por tu!”

BKennedy on November 18, 2007 at 7:53 AM

That said, my point is completely accurate. Go poll some catholics on political ideology, then poll some Christians. Also, it ain’t a coincidence that the northeastern US is the most catholic, yet also one of the most liberal in the nation. There are always exceptions to the rule, but Catholicism is an insurance policy. It’s a “religion”, not something to actually be believed and thought about in daily life. It’s something you keep locked up in a fancy building and a guy in a robe tells you “this is how it is, don’t bother trying to figure it out for yourself!”

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 3:18 PM

First of all, Catholics are Christians. You must have a lot of balls to think you have the right to exclude Catholics from it when they are the largest major group within Christianity and other major group (mine) would have you separated from Christianity before them. Learn your place, minority.

Second, I did this before, but it looks like I have to do it again:
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Look under religion. Catholics do indeed vote democrat more than protestants. By 7%. Big fucking deal. And they still have a majority voting for Bush.

Darth Executor on November 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3