The challenges ahead for Pope Francis, Catholics, and the Church worldwide
Mar 20, 2015 at 8:59am Edited
Mar 22, 2015 at 3:46pm Edited
Politics and religion-- a tough combo. I think this thread is the right place to discuss this topic.
http://ow.ly/2WiO2h
IM80 said:
Politics and religion-- a tough combo. I think this thread is the right place to discuss this topic.
http://ow.ly/2WiO2h
The author of that article, Deacon Greg Kandra, says that Martin O'Malley is "conveniently" ignoring the church's teaching. To my eyes, Deacon Kandra is not listening to O'Malley, because O'Malley is aiming to improve human dignity and the common good, which are on the one hand more important than any doctrinal teaching and on the other hand one-and-the-same as any church's worthy goal. So I think Kandra is being a major doofus here, and history will prove him wrong. Good for O'Malley for speaking up in this way.
From Kandra:
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.
Seriously? Respect for certain humans can't be tolerated? If the church teaches this, the church is wrong. Humans of all kinds deserve respect.
This deacon is afraid of change and loss of power. Too bad for him and his ilk.
"The church teaches ..." are completely hollow words when they are in contradiction with the current pope. The pope says "Who am I to judge?" So who is Kandra to judge? Who is he to tell politicians how their consciences should operate?
The sooner we accept same sex marriage, the better off we will be, because the later one changes one's mind, the more one will be remembered for being on the wrong side. This is the direction society is going in. I predict the Catholic church will eventually accept it, maybe even soon. We already have two major other Christian denominations accepting it.
The sooner we accept same sex marriage, the better off we will be, because the later one changes one's mind, the more one will be remembered for being on the wrong side. This is the direction society is going in. I predict the Catholic church will eventually accept it, maybe even soon. We already have two major other Christian denominations accepting it.
If respect for homosexual persons isn't going to be allowed to lead to approval of gay behavior (what is that, exactly? are we dancing around the word "sex" here?) or legal recognition of gay unions, then what exactly IS that "respect"? What kind of respect picks and chooses elements of a person to allow or not allow? To my mind, you either respect a person or you don't.
"Who am I to judge" is the most-often misinterpreted thing this pope has ever said. Tom, I'm not particularly interested in debating theology in this forum, but for the sake of facts: that off-the-cuff statement dealt with gay celibate clergy, and was a very important tonal shift indeed, but not a change in teaching about moral behavior. There were preconditions, both stated and implied, in that statement, but the context has been completely lost by the modern love of soundbites.
SB is right, as usual! 
The sound bite world we live in has toppled commoners and corporations alike. Adhering to a moral belief or stance in the 21st century is like waving a red flag at a bull -- CHARGE!
I wouldn't bet the farm on that prediction, Tom. Those Christian denominations broke off from the Roman Catholic Church previously, so taking their own path on this issue is hardly a turn away from from Catholic teaching.
Odd, I have posted several links recently which reflect faith based articles with little reaction. I figured followers of this thread may have read them, smiled or shed a tear. Except following the last link. So little tolerance for opposing thought.
The sound bite world we live in has toppled commoners and corporations alike. Adhering to a moral belief or stance in the 21st century is like waving a red flag at a bull -- CHARGE!
Tom_Reingold said:
"The church teaches ..." are completely hollow words when they are in contradiction with the current pope. The pope says "Who am I to judge?" So who is Kandra to judge? Who is he to tell politicians how their consciences should operate?
The sooner we accept same sex marriage, the better off we will be, because the later one changes one's mind, the more one will be remembered for being on the wrong side. This is the direction society is going in. I predict the Catholic church will eventually accept it, maybe even soon. We already have two major other Christian denominations accepting it.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that prediction, Tom. Those Christian denominations broke off from the Roman Catholic Church previously, so taking their own path on this issue is hardly a turn away from from Catholic teaching.
Odd, I have posted several links recently which reflect faith based articles with little reaction. I figured followers of this thread may have read them, smiled or shed a tear. Except following the last link. So little tolerance for opposing thought.
Mar 23, 2015 at 5:03am Edited
ow.ly links are blocked at work. Any way you can post actual links?
ETA: Or, at the very least, as we have asked you to do numerous times, say something resembling anything about the subject link so we can maybe google up the article you want us to read?
ETA: Or, at the very least, as we have asked you to do numerous times, say something resembling anything about the subject link so we can maybe google up the article you want us to read?
Here is an excerpt Ridski...
Martin O’Malley on being Catholic and supporting gay marriage
March 22, 2015 by Deacon Greg Kandra
The possible Democratic candidate made his remarks in an interview with The Des Moines Register.
The former governor of Maryland conveniently overlooks the Catholic church’s teaching on this particular issue:
If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
Martin O’Malley on being Catholic and supporting gay marriage
March 22, 2015 by Deacon Greg Kandra
The possible Democratic candidate made his remarks in an interview with The Des Moines Register.
The former governor of Maryland conveniently overlooks the Catholic church’s teaching on this particular issue:
If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
@ridski, the link is here.
SouthernBaron, I'll read more about the pope's stance on gays.
I have a queer daughter, and I hope to see her married one day. Fortunately, we won't have a church standing in the way of that.
@IM80, I see no tolerance from opposing points of view in the article you cited. In fact, it comes across to me as saying, "get back in line, no opposition allowed." I don't know what you mean about waving a red flag. I have moral views, too, you know, and I don't feel attacked. Does my lack of an attacked feeling mean you don't think my view is moral?
Isn't taking one's own path a turn away, by definition?
SouthernBaron, I'll read more about the pope's stance on gays.
I have a queer daughter, and I hope to see her married one day. Fortunately, we won't have a church standing in the way of that.
@IM80, I see no tolerance from opposing points of view in the article you cited. In fact, it comes across to me as saying, "get back in line, no opposition allowed." I don't know what you mean about waving a red flag. I have moral views, too, you know, and I don't feel attacked. Does my lack of an attacked feeling mean you don't think my view is moral?
... taking their own path on this issue is hardly a turn away from from Catholic teaching
Isn't taking one's own path a turn away, by definition?
When Catholics leave the Church to find comfort in another Christian religion, that is taking a different path because they no longer accept the teachings of the RC Church.
I think what I intended to say -- badly at that -- was that the breakaway from Rome with the establishment of Protestant demoninations occurred hundreds of years ago, and were not due to the Catholic Church's position to gay marriages. As a matter of fact, most Christian churches held opinions similar to those of the Catholic Church.
I think what I intended to say -- badly at that -- was that the breakaway from Rome with the establishment of Protestant demoninations occurred hundreds of years ago, and were not due to the Catholic Church's position to gay marriages. As a matter of fact, most Christian churches held opinions similar to those of the Catholic Church.
While Americans are quick to express amazement or horror over inequities in classes or castes in countries around the world, do we consider what has been taking place in the USA?
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/can-family-breakdown-in-low-education-america-be-reversed-maybe/article/2561904?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/can-family-breakdown-in-low-education-america-be-reversed-maybe/article/2561904?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Mar 25, 2015 at 9:21am Edited
It's an interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with its conclusions completely, or even with the premise, but thanks for posting it.
However, for Pete's sake, do not read the comments. It appears that the Washington Examiner is read by members of StormFront.
ETA: Not that I'm saying you're a member of StormFront, IM80. Sorry, I really do NOT mean to imply that at all. Just... Well, some of those comments, man... Wow.
However, for Pete's sake, do not read the comments. It appears that the Washington Examiner is read by members of StormFront.
ETA: Not that I'm saying you're a member of StormFront, IM80. Sorry, I really do NOT mean to imply that at all. Just... Well, some of those comments, man... Wow.
Mar 25, 2015 at 10:08am Edited
Now you have piqued by curiosity, Ridski. But, I will not read those comments.
Came across this quote today and wanted to share it. Doesn't exactly relate to this subject however.
When all think alike, no one thinks very much"
- Walter Lippmann
Came across this quote today and wanted to share it. Doesn't exactly relate to this subject however.
When all think alike, no one thinks very much"
- Walter Lippmann
Mar 31, 2015 at 4:02am Edited
Excuse me for using this thread for a personal note. Our son died one year ago today. Please say a prayer for him. A lover of animals of all kinds since a very young child. He was greatly loved.
So sorry for you as you observe this saddest of anniversaries, IM80. 
>
<
>< We have supportive family and friends sharing this painful journey with us -- and our faith which comforts us. That said, there is nothing like the"kindness of strangers " to lighten your heart.
Of course,MOLers really aren't strangers
Of course,MOLers really aren't strangers
As MOL mourns the sudden death of one pf its own, this article is appropriate for this solemn Good Friday....
https://thejesuitpost.org/2015/04/what-wondrous-love-honoring-loss-on-good-friday/
https://thejesuitpost.org/2015/04/what-wondrous-love-honoring-loss-on-good-friday/
That was beautiful, IM80. And yes, there is too much death around to process these days. A close friend of my brother's passed away a week ago suddenly, a man I knew somewhat and admired. Then Laura. And my mother six months ago, and your son a year ago.
I know it is beyond me to process all this sorrow.
I know it is beyond me to process all this sorrow.
Amen to that, PeggyC! A serious downside for folks reaching old age (certainly don't include you!) is the loss of family members and friends who have traveled with you on your life journey.
APRIL 6, 2015
"Lord, help me to make time today to serve you in those who are most in need of encouragement or assistance."
— St. Vincent de Paul
APRIL 6, 2015
"Lord, help me to make time today to serve you in those who are most in need of encouragement or assistance."
— St. Vincent de Paul
Although I am definitely in the age bracket where people lose their parents, which goodness knows is a heck of a shock, even though you see it coming a mile away. Even more shocking is the loss of friends my own age because of completely unexpected medical issues.
It does make me look back fondly at my 30s and 40s, when these things didn't happen nearly as much because we were in the lull before the storm. Oh, to be ignorant of this particular fact of life again. I know plenty of people lose loved ones even at that young age, but somehow we got through it unscathed.
It does make me look back fondly at my 30s and 40s, when these things didn't happen nearly as much because we were in the lull before the storm. Oh, to be ignorant of this particular fact of life again. I know plenty of people lose loved ones even at that young age, but somehow we got through it unscathed.
Leading by example, the Pope wins hearts and minds. In so many issues and conflicts, a little common sense and respect for others can defuse hatred.
http://cnstopstories.com/2015/04/07/reason-for-popes-popularity-seen-not-only-in-message-but-in-his-example/
http://cnstopstories.com/2015/04/07/reason-for-popes-popularity-seen-not-only-in-message-but-in-his-example/
Our MTA-riding son shared this"poetry in motion" he saw on this AM ride to work...
Heaven
by Patrick Phillips
It will be the past
and we'll live there together.
Not as it was to live
but as it is remembered.
It will be the past.
We'll all go back together.
Everyone we ever loved,
and lost, and must remember.
Heaven
by Patrick Phillips
It will be the past
and we'll live there together.
Not as it was to live
but as it is remembered.
It will be the past.
We'll all go back together.
Everyone we ever loved,
and lost, and must remember.
Thought for today...
Saturday in the Octave of Easter
Reading 1 Acts 4:13-21
Observing the boldness of Peter and John
and perceiving them to be uneducated, ordinary men,
the leaders, elders, and scribes were amazed,
and they recognized them as the companions of Jesus.
Then when they saw the man who had been cured standing there with them,
they could say nothing in reply.
So they ordered them to leave the Sanhedrin,
and conferred with one another, saying,
“What are we to do with these men?
Everyone living in Jerusalem knows that a remarkable sign
was done through them, and we cannot deny it.
But so that it may not be spread any further among the people,
let us give them a stern warning
never again to speak to anyone in this name.”
So they called them back
and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.
Peter and John, however, said to them in reply,
“Whether it is right in the sight of God
for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges.
It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.”
After threatening them further,
they released them,
finding no way to punish them,
on account of the people who were all praising God
for what had happened.
Saturday in the Octave of Easter
Reading 1 Acts 4:13-21
Observing the boldness of Peter and John
and perceiving them to be uneducated, ordinary men,
the leaders, elders, and scribes were amazed,
and they recognized them as the companions of Jesus.
Then when they saw the man who had been cured standing there with them,
they could say nothing in reply.
So they ordered them to leave the Sanhedrin,
and conferred with one another, saying,
“What are we to do with these men?
Everyone living in Jerusalem knows that a remarkable sign
was done through them, and we cannot deny it.
But so that it may not be spread any further among the people,
let us give them a stern warning
never again to speak to anyone in this name.”
So they called them back
and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.
Peter and John, however, said to them in reply,
“Whether it is right in the sight of God
for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges.
It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.”
After threatening them further,
they released them,
finding no way to punish them,
on account of the people who were all praising God
for what had happened.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info -
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Religion and politics are loaded topics, but here is an article brave enough to tackle it!
http://ow.ly/2Wjnlp