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.

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!”

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.

• 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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

“[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.

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.

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.)

… 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.

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.

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?

“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)