Posted on 12/30/2010 10:20:14 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Excellent points.
Thx.
Harumph!
LOL.
Hope your hand is much better.
The Manuka honey seems to be quite effective against a list of stuff.
INDEED.
And that authoritarian autocratic circle-the-wagons reflex is seemingly never discussed candidly, acurately by even the better RC's on FR.
Who do they think they're fooling? Certainly NOT God!
And certainly not those with a brain above a gnat's.
Yeah. The doctor lanced it in the office and gave me a short course of antibiotics.
Ahhhh.Good for the effective treatment.
The best man at my wedding and I were horsing around crossing a side street and I fell and scratched up my forearm. Got horrendous staph. Thankfully, it responded well to antibiotics. The doc was quite alarmed, as was my RN wife.
Well, it has gone from using physical weapons against people to bishops advocating that firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated. http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
thx
That position is neither supported by the link you provided or by Church teachings. The personal opinions of one or more bishops do not trump the Catechism which clearly established the right and duty to use deadly force for self defense and the defense of the innocents, but I do understand not letting the truth get in the way of a good smear of the Church.
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
If you read what i said carefully rather than being a typical reactionary, you should seen that i does not say the official teaching but “bishops,” which i was careful to stipulate, but should have specified “certain American.” But this is just another example of the diverse beliefs among RCs and her clergy. As for waging war after the flesh, that was official policy, and i think some here may wish it still was.
As for your premise is that the bishops liberalism is contrary to Rome, thank God is is officially, yet what she really teaches is manifest by what she most effectually conveys, and it can easily and abundantly be evidenced that this is liberalism in doctrine and morals (and not only among laity0, and showing relative commitment than her evangelical counterparts. And i shall if you continue.
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.