Posted on 01/10/2014 5:28:10 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's recent ruling, issuing a stay on the fines for the Little Sisters of the Poor, struck some people in violent ways. One blogger, Jamie Stiehm writing for U.S. News, seems to think that Sotomayor outed herself as that most crass and small minded of people: a Catholic! This was certainly not a predictable outcome in the minds of those progressives who celebrated the elevation of the first "wise Latina" to the highest court in the land. She was supposed to stay on the reservation, of course, voting reliably to uphold the foundations of liberal orthodoxy, whenever they were threatened.
In the progressive worldview, contraception and abortion are to women what breathing and eating are to men: absolute necessities of life. Waivers are being handed out right and left for Obamacare victims, but no waivers for nuns. And if Justice Sotomayor stands up for the religious liberty of these noble women, well "she's just a good Catholic girl," in the snarky tone of Stiehm's blog post. In her opinion, that court is now the "Catholic Supreme Court," and it hates women.
In a rant of old fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry, of which there is a long history in the United States, we learn several scary things. "Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if 'you' are female." And that when Thomas Jefferson championed the separation of church and state, he was "thinking particularly of pernicious Rome." Rome remains pernicious, apparently. The Little Sisters, who, by the way, take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience in order to slave their lives away taking care of the indigent elderly, are terribly wily, and "seemingly innocent." And the big bad Catholic archbishops have painted a bullseye on the foreheads American females: "Their principal target for years on end has been squelching women and girls."
The kind of contempt the author spreads on the heads of Catholics, if written about any other group, would have her immediately barred from polite society, and justifiably. In her mind, there is a noble sisterhood, comprising at least her and Nancy Pelosi. Women who disagree with them are not sisters, though they may be nuns. As a wise Latina myself, I feel very sorry for Justice Sotomayor. She thought she was being celebrated for herself and her achievements in the face of societal barriers that should have kept a Hispanic woman down. It turns out she was just a token after all. Now that she has sided with religious liberty over liberal pieties, she has been unceremoniously dumped from the sisterhood.
I think that Justice Sotomayor understands something that Ms. Stiehm may never get. Governments that wish to preserve a truly pluralistic society must act with great delicacy and even tenderness when it comes to the conscientious scruples of its citizens. It is not necessary to share those scruples or even understand them. Progressives believe with all their soul that women's sexual liberty, untrammeled by copays or unwanted children, trumps any other "good," including religious freedom. They are free to propose that idea in the public square, and they do so with all the power of Hollywood, MTV and higher education behind them. They have the administration on their side, most newspapers and most TV stations. But they don't have most of the citizens of this country, they don't have the Catholic Church and they may have lost Justice Sotomayor.
The mysteries spoken of is esoteric communication from Satan and his forces. Satan had to go underground after the Garden (crawl in the dust) and now he communicates in such a manner that it is labeled as a mystery religion by those who receive such communication. The Jesuit founder Loyola received this communication while recovering from battle wounds, he said it was a serpent phantom that spoke to him. A lot of the people in the hierarchies of the four dynasties of the end times receive these communications, I believe. It makes them feel special, the use it to get ahead financially, and that's why they're so willing to go against God's Word.
And God said He is like a fir tree, it's biblical why we put up a tree at the time of the conception.
Now is not the time to hide your candle under a bushel. The battle lines are being drawn, and the pope is drawing them. Time for people to pick a side and we have to be clear which side is which.
Certainly not. I disagree with the system entirely. There may have been a pope or two that got things right, John Paul I may have been a good pope had he been allowed to live, but the system itself is destined to failure. You can't call a man besides Jesus infallible.
The book of Revelation is a bit much?
Christ's Church was not just Peter, it was all of the disciples.
And besides, Peter never went to Rome anyway, Paul never mentions him there, but that is another discussion.
You are exactly right.
The left-wing opinionistas are generally willing to tolerate a Christian if he doesn't actually believe "all that stuff."
And they'll carry the self-described "Christian" up to the speakers' platform and hand him a mic if he actually comes out and ATTACKS Christian doctrine. He's "enlightened, compassionate and progressive." He's made it to the 21st Century. He's "grown."
“Polite” these days means: (!) always attentive to “The Narrative” rather than the actual nit-pickin’ pesky facts, and (2) never disturbing “The Consensus”.
Partisan, but I think you may not have an accurate definition of the word 'infallible' as used by the RC Church.
It doesn't mean the Pope is an all-purpose oracle. It doesn't mean all his opinions are correct. Not even all of his theological opinions. It just means that if he's spouting erroneous theological opinions --- on questions of faith and morals --- he will not be able to do so exercising the authority of his office so as to mislead the whole Church.
It is essentially a negative guarantee, a protection of Christ's faithful against haywire popes.
This amusing short video may tickle you, and it pretty well explains the matter:
Jesus was conceived on Dec 25, born Sept 29.
Yeah, there is a certain time when learned Catholics believe the pope is infallible. The problem is a lot of Catholics believe the pope is always infallible, due to the system of belief that says the pope represents Christ. So when the pope tells his sheep to throw away their conservative economics beliefs, suddenly you have a much more left-leaning group of people to deal with on top of the traditional atheist liberals you had to deal with in the first place.
So?
And remember the bible records in the same passage that Jesus was also obedient to Mary and Joseph ...
"Woman; that is the longest headache on RECORD!"
Where is that in the Bible?
Mostly in Luke 1. It starts with the conception of John the Baptist. Zechariah, his father, served one of the 24 courses of the year in Jerusalem. It was during his course that he was given the prophecy that his wife Elizabeth would conceive upon his arrival back home. Zechariah’s course was the Course of Abia, which concludes on the date equivalent to our June 23. It was a two day walk for a man of his age back to home so Elizabeth conceived on June 25. When Mary rushed to Elizabeth’s house to tell her of her conception with Jesus, Elizabeth was 6 months with child as Luke 1:26 says, and John leaped in her womb for being in the presence of Jesus. June 25 + 6 months = Dec 25. Jesus was born on a certain day in the Feast of Tabernacles which corresponds to our Sept 29.
If it's "a lot of Catholics," it must mean this serious error is very widespread!
Could you name one?
"... due to the system of belief that says the pope represents Christ."
In some respect, every Christian represents Christ, since we are all members of His Body. The pope, however, represents Him as chief servant, since he has the power of the keys (Isaiah 22:22-23) . This makes him the steward of the royal household, syn: royal vassal, suzereign, seneschal. It puts him in a position of service, for instance, to control the storehouse and dispense the food, as Christ said to Peter: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." (John 21:15)
"So when the pope tells his sheep to throw away their conservative economics beliefs,"
First of all, the pope's competence is not in economics, it's in faith and morals. Second, the pope has not told his sheep to throw away their conservative economic beliefs.
This article, which I posted this morning, may help:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3110914/posts
"... suddenly you have a much more left-leaning group of people to deal with on top of the traditional atheist liberals you had to deal with in the first place."
Well, year, that's true. I concede you that much. But the Catholic Left is like an opportunistic infection: it attacks the vulnerable who lack a robust immune system: a sufficiently deep and wide knowledge of "the Mind of the Church." Which does not consist in cut-and-paste proof-texts which, 99.999% of the time, should feature the disclaimer, "I actually did not read this Apostolic Exhortation."
Look at all the Catholics here that have turned against the free market since the pope made his anti-supply side statements. There were long threads with long-conservative Catholics here arguing against Rush, Sarah, etc. That's all it takes when there is a system set up where a man is declared "infallible".
In some respect, every Christian represents Christ, since we are all members of His Body. The pope, however, represents Him as chief servant, since he has the power of the keys (Isaiah 22:22-23) . This makes him the steward of the royal household, syn: royal vassal, suzereign, seneschal. It puts him in a position of service, for instance, to control the storehouse and dispense the food, as Christ said to Peter: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." (John 21:15)
I don't believe in men declaring other men "chief servants". God is not a respecter of persons. It's dangerous for men to declare that God prefers any man over another. Only God knows who it is He prefers.
First of all, the pope's competence is not in economics, it's in faith and morals.
Many Catholics don't know that.
Second, the pope has not told his sheep to throw away their conservative economic beliefs.
Paragraph 54, I believe, of his recent release. He precisely attacked Reagan using the left's terminology.
For one thing ---as I understand it: I am open to correction--- the periods of priestly service ("courses") covered 24 weeks and then started over again, so the "course of Abia" came up twice in a year, in the 10th week of the year and in the 34th week. So we can't definitely say when Zechariah received the angelic visitation.
Secondly, it says that Zechariah's wife Elizabeth conceived "after those days" (Luke 1:24), which doesn't require it to be 20 minutes after Zechariah returned home and got his clothes off! It could have been days, weeks, who knows? Nothing in the text compels us to say it was according to the hypothetical expedited bus schedule you propose.
My comment here is not meant to sweep away your evidence, but to say there are several different, legitimate ways to look at the evidence. There are even people who calculate from the second "course of Abia" to place Jesus' conception in late March, and his birth in late December.
I don't know that it's a dogma of the Faith, either way.
One more question, a simple one: where in the Bible does it say Our Lord is like a fir tree? (I'm just interested. I think it's an attractive idea, so I'd like to know more about it.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.