CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > Biblical Chronology and Church History
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 17th October 2009, 06:45 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeline View Post

Followed this up by a quick read of 'Can a Catholic be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of my Religion' by David Carlin


Your assessment of this book is enough for me to know that it is poorly written and something to be avoided. A similar book could be written about how the Republican party has become the enemy of the Church. Anything written in this style would not be accepted at the college or university level as worthy reading material.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17th October 2009, 07:52 AM
Beeline
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow, your out on a limb.

What I wrote was not an assessment of that book.
Sorry, but I wasnt writing a book review.
However, I find Amazon reviews to be entirely helpful.


Specifically, the Triumph book(historical analysis) edged me into providing a historical overlay between Hitlers taking over of the government through a ploy and Obama and the Democratic Party. I wasnt making a comparison concerning world war, the holocaust or human experimentation. Those who dont know history are condemned to repeat it.

Specifically, the history of Europe with heresies and modern liberalism battling the Catholic Church through
2000 years is the same history of competing philosophies battling the Catholic Church through nationalism and state power today here in the good ole' USA. No enlightened Catholic intellectual disputes this, however, they may argue
that in the US because of our unique political institutions it has been muted significantly. But currently these tensions are running at their highest tempo here in the U.S.

Further if you doubt that the Democratic Party is the enemy
of Catholicism, then you should read that book. But it was pretty elementary for me and I only recently bought the book for a friend who didnt know anything about the 'Culture War', media bias and secularism. Which may be terms you should look up.Anyhow the book had been recently returned so I thought I'd give it a cursory read.

Last edited by Beeline : 17th October 2009 at 08:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17th October 2009, 08:35 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeline View Post
Wow, your out on a limb.


One doesn't need to go out on a limb to find the book you mentioned to be problematic. The influence of secularism is known and does not need to be looked up. This is a very familiar concept to most people in this forum. The problem is in describing people as "thugs, perverts, etc" and then assuming that corruption is unique to a particular political party. One could easily write a similar diatribe about any other political party, either in the U.S. or elsewhere. The problem is in the style of writing -- just from the title one can know that this book is to be avoided.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17th October 2009, 11:34 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,739
Default

My opinion of the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. is that a faithful Catholic will find agreement with some of the positions of both parties, and will find disagreement with some of the positions of both parties. The Democrats have some good positions on concern for the poor, raising the minimum wage, providing health care for everyone, although their positions are often not ideal from a Catholic perspective. The Republicans of course have more prolife members, but a substantial number of Democrats are also prolife. Republicans tend to have better positions on family values issues, such as opposing gay marriage.

I don't think an absolute or exaggerated condemnation of either party is reasonable.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 18th October 2009, 05:54 AM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron, this brings up a point. I was watching a Michael Moore interview and he was using Christ to sell a social agenda stating that Christ said to sell your riches and give them to the poor.

Is there not a disticntion here. Chirst never charged others to force others to be charitable. Isnt it true that if a person is forced to be charitable then free will no longer plays a roll. Therefore it is not charity.

I take issue with others that use Christianity to push a social agenda on a National level. To me, Christ spoke to the individual and charged each of us to be charitable, he did not charge governments to force charity and make people dependant on them so that they continue to vote for them.

I also do not agree, nor will I ever agree that you can vote for a candidate who is pro-death when there are viable pro-life candidates and still call yourself pro-life.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 18th October 2009, 12:47 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,739
Default

faithful and reasonable Catholics may disagree on matters that require a judgment of the prudential order, such as to what extent the government should intervene to solve social problems, or how to evaluate the complex political situations of the day.

we may even disagree with the Pope to some extent on matters that require a judgment of the prudential order (i.e. disagreeing with temporal decisions):

Pope John XXIII: "Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory."

Colorado Catholic Conference: "In some moral matters the use of reason allows for a legitimate diversity in our prudential judgments. Catholic voters may differ, for example, on what constitutes the best immigration policy, how to provide universal health care, or affordable housing. Catholics may even have differing judgments on the state's use of the death penalty or the decision to wage a just war. The morality of such questions lies not in what is done (the moral object), but in the motive and circumstances. Therefore, because these prudential judgments do not involve a direct choice of something evil, and take into consideration various goods, it is possible for Catholic voters to arrive at different, even opposing judgments."

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 18th October 2009, 12:53 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post
Is there not a disticntion here. Chirst never charged others to force others to be charitable. Isnt it true that if a person is forced to be charitable then free will no longer plays a roll. Therefore it is not charity.

The authority of every just and reasonable government is ordained by God, and is under, and in principle an extension of, the temporal authority of the Church. The Church exercises Her temporal authority over all mankind by overseeing and correcting secular authorities. So in principle governments ought to behave in a Christian manner, ought to act toward the common good, ought to help to solve problems that are more easily addressed by the people at a national level.

However, governments are not gods; they cannot be expected to solve every problem, to replace our own charity to our neighbor, to govern all conduct, or to make all that is immoral also be illegal.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 18th October 2009, 04:33 PM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Ron
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 18th October 2009, 05:03 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post
I also do not agree, nor will I ever agree that you can vote for a candidate who is pro-death when there are viable pro-life candidates and still call yourself pro-life.

Your position is an oversimplification.

Unfortunately, all or nearly all of the so-called pro-life candidates are, in the light of the holy Catholic Faith, not entirely pro-life. They are called pro-life, but they support direct abortion in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. And some support embryonic stem cell research. Few, if any, of the pro-life candidates are in favor if making 'emergency contraception' and other abortifacient contraception illegal. Few, if any, are in favor of outlawing artificial procreation, which (as it is currently practiced) includes direct killing of the unborn.

So you are in fact voting for candidates who are partly pro-life and partly, as you phrased it, pro-death.

A better position for you to take is that you will vote for the candidate whose positions on important issues, such as life issues, are closest to conformity with Catholic teaching. But this is probably the position that you take in practice; it is simply your expression of your position that is not correct.

It is not true that there are two types of candidates, pro-life and pro-abortion (or pro-death, to take into account other life issues). I wish that all pro-life candidates were entirely in conformity with Catholic teaching on life issues, but this is obviously not the case. Almost all pro-life candidates are in favor of legalized direct abortion in some cases.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 18th October 2009, 11:45 PM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron, you are correct about how I phrased it. Yes, very very few people are against IVF, IUD's, The Pill..etc

I think most of these people are uneducated moreso than being in favor of the direct distruction of a pre-born. I would argue that 90% of Democrat politicians and the party's platform are quite clear that they see no problem with the intentional direct destruction of a pre-born by directly targeting the pre-born for destruction. Most people are ignorant and do not make the connection about this when it comes to the pill or an IUD or IVF..etc
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.