Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Cindy-534370 said: What about the far left?
My studied response to your question, Cindy, is that, again within this particularly Catholic community, anyone calling themselves "Catholic" while simultaneously believing in the political views espoused by the uber-liberals are at a minimum, frauds, and at the maximum, would qualify for the death penalty, but for the fact that the Church opposes it; therefore, I reiterate my reference to Dante's Inferno, and its gradually more punitive Circles of Hell. I wonder if anyone on this Forum has actually read the Inferno: it might surprise some members to discover the various personages who reside in one circle or another.

Did you know that, at least around the time when my grandmother was born, unbaptized babies were in danger of winding up in Limbo, should they happen to die before the Sacrament could be administered? This strongly-held belief resulted in large numbers of just-born babies being rushed off to the baptismal font, regardless of the weather, and some died as a direct result - but the good news is that at least they had been baptized and had a chance of entering the kingdom of heaven. My grandmother survived, but, in the race to get her to the Church right away, her father completely forgot the instructions he had been given for what to name her. When the question inevitably arose, he panicked, but then noticing that a nearby Bible was open to The Book of Ruth, he shouted out: "Ruth! Her name is Ruth!" He had a good deal of 'splaining to do when he returned home.
LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new
no, the answer is simply no..you are a sheep or a goat..the sheep are on the right(conservative)..the goats are on the left(liberal/COMMUNISTIC leaning!!)AS Jesus teaches ,you are either for HIM or against HIM..it's like asking , "can you be a Catholic and a Freemason at the same time....no, no...Jesus is not secretive..ask Pope Leo XIII...Peace
LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Maura-1030942 said: I agree that the Constitution was not meant to separate "religious-based morality" from the federal government; however, I disagree with the synonymous use of "religious-based morality" and "church". I rather think you would find very few voters who are avowed atheists, while being "religious" without being a member of any particular denomination could well be widespread. I'm unclear on what you mean by "secular philosophy". Given the history of centuries of Church and State being combined in one person, whether a monarch or a pope, the insistence on the separation of the two seems, to me, anyway, to have been the natural political outcome of those who came to America specifically seeking freedom of religion.
What I meant was that courts in this country are treating "church" and "religious-based morality" as synonymous when they are not. A particular church insisting on having the right the rule, to be the established religion, or to have privileges over other religions is not the same thing as the majority of the people proposing a particular law that happens to coincide with religious teachings. I agree with separation and church and state as understood before the late 20th century.
LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Maura-1030942 said: My studied response to your question, Cindy, is that, again within this particularly Catholic community, anyone calling themselves "Catholic" while simultaneously believing in the political views espoused by the uber-liberals are at a minimum, frauds, and at the maximum, would qualify for the death penalty, but for the fact that the Church opposes it; therefore, I reiterate my reference to Dante's Inferno, and its gradually more punitive Circles of Hell. I wonder if anyone on this Forum has actually read the Inferno: it might surprise some members to discover the various personages who reside in one circle or another.

Did you know that, at least around the time when my grandmother was born, unbaptized babies were in danger of winding up in Limbo, should they happen to die before the Sacrament could be administered? This strongly-held belief resulted in large numbers of just-born babies being rushed off to the baptismal font, regardless of the weather, and some died as a direct result - but the good news is that at least they had been baptized and had a chance of entering the kingdom of heaven. My grandmother survived, but, in the race to get her to the Church right away, her father completely forgot the instructions he had been given for what to name her. When the question inevitably arose, he panicked, but then noticing that a nearby Bible was open to The Book of Ruth, he shouted out: "Ruth! Her name is Ruth!" He had a good deal of 'splaining to do when he returned home.

That's a unique and amazing story of how your grandmother got her name. Ruth is a great biblical name. I love the story of Ruth. It was meant to be her name.

I have the book Inferno and started reading in the past, but never finished reading it. I'll have to pull it out and read it.


Thank you Maura,have a blessed Sunday.

LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new
"Conservatives who insist on labeling those who are Pro-Choice, as Pro-Abortion is entirely unreasonable; I am very much against abortion, but I believe that the issue is between the woman and God, who, after all, we believe to be the only personage entitled to pass judgment without restriction; I do not believe that the government should be in the business of legislating either for or against abortion. Likewise, I do not believe that the government has any right to determine whether a particular person should be systematically murdered under the death sentence. "

Labels can hurtful, but they can also be beneficial and downright necessary. The "poison" label quickly comes to mind. Further, labels can objectively communicate truth.

Societies have laws prohibiting murder. All would seemingly agree with such a restriction. And if one commits murder, there is a penalty. Of course, in the end, one's transgressions (including murder) will be between the offender and God. Nevertheless, we have laws.

If the government has no right to codify the murder of an inmate (who likely even committed murder), it ought not have the right to sponsor the murder of anyone, especially the innocent.

Abortion is murder of a child in the womb. Government's function is to protect individual liberty. (By permitting such an atrocity, government surely fails us.) Why would anyone not extend that protection under the law to the child in the womb?

It defies logic.

It defies truth.

And by extension, if one denies truth, one denies the Author of Truth.




LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Maura-1030942 said: Again, I refer to the question as it is phrased in the CM Profile section; although extensive space is allotted to the role of music in one's life, there is no equivalent section for explaining one's political views.

Moreover, prior to the Reagan administration, the majority of Catholics were "liberals" - even Democrats, if you will. For instance, the Church teaches that whatsoever one does for the least of their brothers, it is entirely the same as if one were doing the same to Christ; the debate over "entitlements" (a misnomer if ever there was one) is primarily divided to the left and right of the aisles of the legislative branch. Conservatives who insist on labeling those who are Pro-Choice, as Pro-Abortion is entirely unreasonable; I am very much against abortion, but I believe that the issue is between the woman and God, who, after all, we believe to be the only personage entitled to pass judgment without restriction; I do not believe that the government should be in the business of legislating either for or against abortion. Likewise, I do not believe that the government has any right to determine whether a particular person should be systematically murdered under the death sentence. (By the way, the State of Texas ranks first in executions under the death penalty, and yet conservative, 7/7 Catholics found no conflict in voting for George W. Bush, the former Governor of Texas - after all he was Pro-Life, and wanted America to focus on "family values".) The basic disagreement between Democrats and Republicans is the role of the government in assuming responsibility for the health, education, and welfare of the poor - and yet, the Church leads the world in missionary work, recognizing that there are truly many people who are so desperately underprivileged that the evangelization of most missionaries comes second, third, or fourth behind clean water, enough food to ward off starvation, and basic healthcare where there otherwise is none to be found. Apparently, however, charity does not begin at home for most missionary work.
Your personal views of the death penalty aside, you do know that the Church teaches that the death penalty is a just exercise of Government Authority?

The only further thing that has been said was that Pope JPII said that in modern society it should be a rare if ever occurring action but he did not condemn its use. Catholics are free to support the death penalty or not.

What we cannot do is equate it to murder, the unjust taking of an innocent life.
LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Maura-1030942 said: My studied response to your question, Cindy, is that, again within this particularly Catholic community, anyone calling themselves "Catholic" while simultaneously believing in the political views espoused by the uber-liberals are at a minimum, frauds, and at the maximum, would qualify for the death penalty, but for the fact that the Church opposes it; therefore, I reiterate my reference to Dante's Inferno, and its gradually more punitive Circles of Hell. I wonder if anyone on this Forum has actually read the Inferno: it might surprise some members to discover the various personages who reside in one circle or another.

Did you know that, at least around the time when my grandmother was born, unbaptized babies were in danger of winding up in Limbo, should they happen to die before the Sacrament could be administered? This strongly-held belief resulted in large numbers of just-born babies being rushed off to the baptismal font, regardless of the weather, and some died as a direct result - but the good news is that at least they had been baptized and had a chance of entering the kingdom of heaven. My grandmother survived, but, in the race to get her to the Church right away, her father completely forgot the instructions he had been given for what to name her. When the question inevitably arose, he panicked, but then noticing that a nearby Bible was open to The Book of Ruth, he shouted out: "Ruth! Her name is Ruth!" He had a good deal of 'splaining to do when he returned home.
The instances of babies dying as a result of being rushed to the baptismal font soon after birth are pure mythology.

On the Limbo question.

Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church.

It was a suggested response to the dilemma raised by Christs word that unless a man be born again of water and thye Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom.

Since God is all merciful and all just we are faced with the question: How can God be just and merciful if a newly born child who cannot and has not sinned be denied heaven, the only alternative being hell? The smae question arises with a man created by God and who lives a righteous life in accordance with the natural law through no fault of their own has no knowledge of Jesus Christ and the need for baptism.

In response, the concept of Limbo made sense in that it took Christ's words literally while at the same time avoiding the injustice and lack of mercy of those souls going to hell for all eternity.

So the concept of Limbo had a popular following although never officially taught as Doctrine or Dogma.
LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new
........." Conservatives who insist on labeling those who are Pro-Choice, as Pro-Abortion is entirely unreasonable; I am very much against abortion, but I believe that the issue is between the woman and God, who, after all, we believe to be the only personage entitled to pass judgment without restriction; I do not believe that the government should be in the business of legislating either for or against abortion. Likewise, I do not believe that the government has any right to determine whether a particular person should be systematically murdered under the death sentence."........ rolling eyes Come on Maura, you are smarter than that.
LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new

Hi Maura,

Good questions! You are definitely a pensive thinker. Bravo.

I shy away from labels. Particularly political labels. Drives ya nuts altogether. People need to associate themselves with one political platform or another.....I prefer not to. My interests and political leanings are driven by my personal value system and not by politics.

For example: I'm PRO-Life but anti-Vatican. (Too much corruption and politics permeate the walls of Roma). I am for the right to bear arms and support pro-gun laws that support the right to protect oneself, family and property. Yet I am against capital punishment. I believe in taxation from a State level, but against taxes for the most part, derived from the Federal level. I don't think we need the TSA, nor fund Social Security and yet I believe we should stay out of all Foreign wars. I believe all of us are illegal aliens and yet I believe in terminating the entire welfare system......I think legal marriage should be legally allowed for all consenting adults regardless of lifestyle, but I truly believe that the ONLY true marriage is the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; not the legal one.

Some things I lean one way, some another. Whose to say?

As we get older, life and living should be less complicated and more simplistic. Stick to your guns. No pun intended. Trust your gut and rely on your personal value system and relationship with your Heavenly Father. Don't allow yourself to get too caught up with one's political leanings. Find out where their heart is, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6: 19-20.

God Bless ~ Rose

LOCKED
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Maura-1030942 said: If your "observation" is correct, why not limit their right to vote in state elections? I'm thinking about presidential elections I can remember; it could be quite controversial to compare relative handsomeness between Mitt Romney and President Obama. Your theory could explain why JFK was chosen over Richard Nixon - but Nixon elected over George McGovern?

And if women base their votes on the quality of looks (which, I can tell you, is never a uniform perception - beauty being, as it is, in the eye of the beholder), what do you opine is the basis for the male vote? Athletic ability? Deeper voice? Height? Firmness of the handshake?

I would be fascinated to read the study on which you have based your general argument regarding women and national elections.
I just threw in 'national' elections in an attempt to throw something womens way;)

But come on--most women--esp black women get all googley eyed when talking about obama or whenever they are in His presence.Its embarrassing to watch.

If Obama looked like Cornell West he wouldnt have been elected.

Now as far as women politicians---I have no problem with that.
LOCKED
Posts 41 - 50 of 187