Posted on 02/13/2012 4:48:03 PM PST by NYer
Talk about missing the point, WOW.
When I was in government school, the Crusaders were the evil conquerors of the peace-loving Mohammedans, who were led by Saladin, the lover of peace.
Finally, the fog is beginning to lift.
—— As a result of this controversy, substantial numbers of Catholics will have heard, for the first time in 40 or 50 years, that their Church actually opposes artificial contraception and abortion.-—
Maybe abortion, but never contraception. It isn’t difficult to preach against, either. It’s just that no one has heard the argument.
Explicame, por favor.
You and I don’t mean the same thing by liberalism. I am talking about theological liberalism, and while John Ryan and even more radical people like Dorothy Day, were politically liberal, they were not theological liberals. Theological liberals are more commonly called modernists, who reject traditional Christianity, the “mere Christianity” of which C.C. Lewis spoke. Nor were Ryan and Catholics like George Meany, socialists, which is the political side of the modernist’s coin. More undercover than not, for modernists dissemble with the same ease as our President, the modernists took important positions in the Church and even in the clergy. But their drive to Power was checked by John Paul II. But they had hopes they could outlast him, only to be frustrated by Benedict XVI, who had added another six years to trying to roll-back the tide.
“I am relieved to see that some evangelicals are willing to side with the RCC on this matter.”
Of course we’ll side with the RCC on this matter, or any other matter where their freedoms are compromised. Sadly, the media, including Fox, is not covering this for what it truly is, i.e., the assult on religion, to any great extent. When it is mentioned, it’s always secondary to the subject of Catholics and contraception. “Catholics and contraception” is NOT the issue; the issue is having our freedoms revoked by a dictator. Once in a while you’ll see Mr. Land from the SBC being interviewed, but not much.
I don’t know any evangelical who isn’t livid and completely up in arms about this, and most of the people I know are evangelicals. Face it; the reason the Mayflower sailed was because the king was dictating how to practice, or not practice, religion in England. There were no Catholics. They were all evangelicals, from 1620 thru 1776, and many lives and fortunes were sacrificed so Americans could practice ALL religions freely. Evangelicals have a vested interest in maintaining the result of sacrifices, and to have this horrible Muslim come in and tell ANY religion what they can and can’t do is unthinkable!
When the infobabes on Fox introduce the next segments as “the contraception issue”, I’m screaming “It’s the “loss of religious freedom issue’!”.
OK; I’m done. (I feel better.) :)
Maybe Obama will have to attack all the special-interest groups one by one in order for the majority of citizens to “get it.”
Of course many still won’t get it. They will only know whether their special-interest group won or lost. They still won’t bother to think about the issue of liberty.
The issue at hand has nothing to do with theological viewpoints. It is a question of State interference in religious institutions. I have no desire to discuss your church's dogmas. I already know what your church teaches.
Now if only the Catholics would stop negotiating with the WH...
Of course it does. The Church’s political posture during the ‘30s put them on the side of Catholic Union leaders who were trying to prevent Communists from taking over the Unions. They were joined in this by more moderate radicals like Walter Reuther. The Unions generally supported the Democratic Party. The Anti-Communist forces were able to defeat the Communists. Indeed, Catholic social doctrines going back to the French Revolution was concerned about the state being hostile to the Church. In America, we had to fight Protestant anti-Catholicism. This allied the Church with the urban pols etc. who were part of the Democratric Coalition. Southerners were anti-Catholic, but the Republican Party was militantly anti-Catholic. The Blaine Amendment was an effort to deny state aid to Catholics that was routinely given to Protestants.
Here is where the theological liberalism comes in: in the ‘60s, many Catholics bought into the Sexual Revolution and there was also a major buy=in to the Great Society program. Johnson gave the Church the public aid that had been denied them. Liberal Catholics abandoned their concern for saving their souls and bought into a more “Jewish” notion of transforming society. At the extreme is the development of Liberation theology, which is an attempt to bridge Catholic and marxist views of the world. Lay Catholics rejected the position of the pope on birth control because their bishops and priests became quiet on the issue. Roe v. Wade forced their hand, because it was —like this new move by Obama— an overreach. So, contraceptives, OK; abortion no. The bishops were now between a rock and a hard place. Bernardin formulated a position that gave lip service to abortion while maintaining liberal ties to the Democratic Party. His kind was also forced into an alliance with the Moral Majority, but was not comfortable with Evangelicals. So at bottom is a question of moral theology:
Indeed He does.
HEY. I never voted for the obozo, nor did 48% of Catholic voters. For that matter, the Catholic liberals who did vote for this fool kicked us in the teeth too and now they are getting kicked in turn. And, don’t forget that the 52% who voted for him were just 13% of the electorate — the majority of those who elected the fool are non-Catholics.
“There were no Catholics. They were all evangelicals, from 1620 thru 1776, and many lives and fortunes were sacrificed so Americans could practice ALL religions freely.”
Then why did George Washington feel the need to address Catholics, especially in recognition that the independence came after the intervention of Catholic (pre-Revolutionary) France?
I didn’t say that Catholics didn’t exist. I meant that there were none involved in the start-up of the American Republic. Sheesh.
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.