Posted on 09/15/2020 8:27:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
The excellent The World Over show with Raymond Arroyo last week had a discussion of that point. The idiot Dem supporter
said some nonsense and Arroyo cut in “That is insulting to our audience. You have no support for that.” Great stuff.
Guy was trying say 1840 support of slavery was using the Bible so today’s anti-abortion Catholics using the Bible are like them. Arroyo refused to let it go by.
What a waste of space the pro-Biden types are.
Imagine that people talked about all the mostly peaceful, good boys in the Brown Shirts too.
Throughout history, jesuits have proven themselves to be political opportunists first and priests/Catholics second. This moral prostitute is no exception.
Thoughtful piece... thanks for posting.
Bookmark.
The fact must be faced that Christianity did not challenge the institution of slavery until, basically, the 1800s. It even took ten years from the Establishment of Christianity in Constantinople to the abolition of the gladiator “games.” And it took the martyrdom of a monk to accomplish that transformation.Having said that, the critique of historical Christianity must include the question, “Compared to what?” And that challenge is devastating to the anti-christian presumption of moral authority - for the simple reason that it was only Christianity which had ever considered slavery to be wrong.
The delegitimization of slavery occurred under the leadership of Christians generally, of Protestant Christians especially, and of British Protestant Christians in particular. No other cultural tradition did anything much more than grudgingly follow the Christians - at a time when the scope of the British Empire was at its zenith. See, Part II of Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
Sorry I mentioned it.
Next time I’ll shut up.
Thank you for the reference - We need the reminders each day that there are liberal-communist-abortionist-revisionists INSIDE the catholic priesthood today. And ever more of them every day ever higher in the church such as the racist liberal Gregory (of Chicago, Atlanta, and now Washington DC).
What about someone who opposes abortion and works to minimize its frequency yet thinks the state should stay out of it?
Is not wanting the government to control these decisions really a mortal sin?
If you believe that the core functions of government are to protect life, liberty, and property, then no, government can’t stay out of it.
And promoting a system that removes government’s protection of life so that others may murder innocents for convenience, is a mortal sin.
So it's a mortal sin to not advocate for particular laws.
Is it a sin, perhaps not mortal, to not demand anti-adultery laws?
Once we start saying that government shouldn’t protect the right to life of the weakest and most defenseless against the claims of the strong and the powerful, “government” ceases to have any meaning or purpose.
Abortion through gay marriage through BLM appears to be a continuum of consistent, anti-life policy. The Democrats’ great skill is convincing half of their voters that they don’t really mean what their platform says...and since said voters are getting a government check, anyway - they had better just shut up.
Who are the strong and powerful threatening the unborn?
The pregnant women struggling to decide how to deal with unwanted pregnancies?
There are indeed powerful forces on both sides but they're operating in the realm of politics. The moral battle is being waged by the women.
The answer to that question is in the article:
“Catholic moral teaching acknowledges that not all issues have the same moral weight.”
You brought up abortion. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Supporting abortion is a mortal sin.
We could go down the whole list of vices and have a discussion regarding whether or not a prohibition of each one should be codified into law.
Personally, I think adultery should be illegal, given the damage it does to families and by extension, society. This issue was important enough to God that He made its prohibition one of our 10 Commandments.
I think it is unwise to defy the Big Guy on any issue He has specifically weighed in on. The down side could be eternal damnation.
“Catholic moral teaching acknowledges that not all issues have the same moral weight.”
I addressed that by acknowledging it may not be a mortal sin, but to be consistent you must admit not fighting for anti-adultery laws is sinful.
Supporting abortion is a mortal sin.
No one is talking about supporting abortion. I'm talking about someone who actively rejects abortion and works to minimize its occurrence.
You say if that person doesn't also push the state to outlaw abortion they're committing a mortal sin.
I just want to know what other anti-sin laws we need to fight for in order not to be sinful.
I appreciate you think abortion is a special case but we're not talking about the morality of the act. We're talking about the morality of not engaging in a political fight.
And when we start threatening peoples souls, not for supporting an immoral act but for being insufficiently politically active to make government stop it, I think we're off the path.
I can’t threaten your soul, it is not within my power to do so. But we must admonish each other to stay on the hard and narrow path to salvation so that we can enjoy each other’s company in a happy place on the other side.
You must not be a Catholic.
I'm not, but it's hard to believe failure to demand legislation is a soul threatening sin in any religion.
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.