Pedophile Priests Can Take Communion. Why Not Biden?

Gin Saké said:
Um, no, they are not supposed to be kept separate. At all. That is not a teaching of the Church. You are responsible to God and to the Church in all areas of your life. Yeah, I think Bob Casey is one of those Dems you speak of who adheres to Church doctrine on abortion. Polls indicate that ~10% of Dems still self-identity as conservative. That might be fewer than identify as non-binary.
Click to expand...

If that's true you can't vote for either sinful party and should avoid secular politics.
 
Jade Dragon said:
If that's true you can't vote for either sinful party and should avoid secular politics.
Click to expand...

Sinful in what way? One party gets a physical thrill from sacrificing babies to Gaia. There is no equivalency—real or imagined—between the parties. Not voting would be a sin of omission.
 
Gin Saké said:
Sinful in what way? One party gets a physical thrill from sacrificing babies to Gaia. There is no equivalency—real or imagined—between the parties. Not voting would be a sin of omission.
Click to expand...

You do realize cloistered nuns don't really vote. There is no such sin of omission, that's horse shit. Oh, and your false generalization of those that vote Democratic is as bogus as saying the right supports gun violence because they enable it like the left enables abortion. In the end, you're voting for politicians and they are usually inherently evil by design.
 
Jade Dragon said:
You do realize cloistered nuns don't really vote. There is no such sin of omission, that's horse shit. Oh, and your false generalization of those that vote Democratic is as bogus as saying the right supports gun violence because they enable it like the left enables abortion. In the end, you're voting for politicians and they are usually inherently evil by design.
Click to expand...

The left actually enjoys the power it has to kill babies. If the right gets stuck having to re-fight the American Revolution, it will understand that there is nothing enjoyable about war. Both cloistered and public clergy also do not participate in a lot of Church missions, such as being fruitful. Again, there is no moral equivalence between the two parties, and there never has been.
 
Gin Saké said:
Um, no, they are not supposed to be kept separate. At all. That is not a teaching of the Church. You are responsible to God and to the Church in all areas of your life. Yeah, I think Bob Casey is one of those Dems you speak of who adheres to Church doctrine on abortion. Polls indicate that ~10% of Dems still self-identity as conservative. That might be fewer than identify as non-binary.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a teaching of the Church. It's in the establishment clause. "The most famous use of the metaphor was by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it, Jefferson declared that when the American people adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.”

You also seem to forget conscience. Catholics on both the left and the right believe that "The conscience is one place that external social pressure is not allowed to violate." Here's an example:

"In late January and early February, two speakers came to Santa Clara University to speak on their experiences of Catholicism and conscience. Roy Bourgeois, laicized Maryknoll priest, recounted his personal experience of following his conscience and advocating women’s ordination. Helen Alvare, professor of law at George Mason University, told her story of fighting the US government’s Health and Human Services contraceptive insurance coverage mandate (HHS mandate)...

When placed on the right-left spectrum of Catholics (a spectrum which is, admittedly, weak at providing helpful nuance, yet is nevertheless in common use), Bourgeois and Alvare would not be mistaken for each other. Bourgeois is a hero of the Catholic “left.” He has been fighting for peace and justice issues since the war in Vietnam, he was expelled from Bolivia, he was jailed for sneaking onto Fort Benning, Georgia, he founded the School of the America’s Watch, and finally he was laicized for advocating the ordination of women to the priesthood, even doing so on Vatican Radio (before being abruptly cut off).

Alvare, on the other hand, is a hero of the Catholic “right.” She was formerly a spokeswoman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and serves on Vatican committees. She opposes contraception and abortion, and is willing to argue her case in public, where she is sometimes even threatened with violence for what she says...

...Yet what most strongly united both speakers was the importance of the concept of conscience to each of them. Roy Bourgeois’ refusal to recant his opinion on women’s ordination was motivated by his conscience. Helen Alvare’s work to oppose the HHS mandate is motivated by her conscience. While the substances of their objections are different, the form is the same: conscience should not be violated."

https://catholicmoraltheology.com/t...teaching-which-unites-and-divides-the-church/
 
Gin Saké said:
The left actually enjoys the power it has to kill babies. If the right gets stuck having to re-fight the American Revolution, it will understand that there is nothing enjoyable about war. Both cloistered and public clergy also do not participate in a lot of Church missions, such as being fruitful. Again, there is no moral equivalence between the two parties, and there never has been.
Click to expand...

WTH happened to you? You always used to be a jokester who could make fun of everything and now you've become as rigid, humorless and dishonest as the worst fundamentalists.
 
Gin Saké said:
The left actually enjoys the power it has to kill babies. If the right gets stuck having to re-fight the American Revolution, it will understand that there is nothing enjoyable about war. Both cloistered and public clergy also do not participate in a lot of Church missions, such as being fruitful. Again, there is no moral equivalence between the two parties, and there never has been.
Click to expand...

^That's dishonest hyperbole. You used to be better than this.
 
Pedophile priests are not setting policy for an entire nation and forcing folks who think it is immoral to pay for it. Now, don't get me wrong, any church that would cover up that particular sin and hide it away providing cover for NAMBLA members to become frocked and protected was making itself a tool of Satan (if you think this anti-god exists, if not, like me, they are just as guilty as the pedophile for letting it continue)... however I think that is what the church would try to say about it.
 
Gin Saké said:
Sinful in what way? One party gets a physical thrill from sacrificing babies to Gaia. There is no equivalency—real or imagined—between the parties. Not voting would be a sin of omission.
Click to expand...

And you get a physical thrill at the thought of war and torture, especially if it involves warring with and torturing Muslims.
 
christiefan915 said:
I didn't say it was a teaching of the Church. It's in the establishment clause. "The most famous use of the metaphor was by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. In it, Jefferson declared that when the American people adopted the establishment clause they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.”

You also seem to forget conscience. Catholics on both the left and the right believe that "The conscience is one place that external social pressure is not allowed to violate." Here's an example:

"In late January and early February, two speakers came to Santa Clara University to speak on their experiences of Catholicism and conscience. Roy Bourgeois, laicized Maryknoll priest, recounted his personal experience of following his conscience and advocating women’s ordination. Helen Alvare, professor of law at George Mason University, told her story of fighting the US government’s Health and Human Services contraceptive insurance coverage mandate (HHS mandate)...

When placed on the right-left spectrum of Catholics (a spectrum which is, admittedly, weak at providing helpful nuance, yet is nevertheless in common use), Bourgeois and Alvare would not be mistaken for each other. Bourgeois is a hero of the Catholic “left.” He has been fighting for peace and justice issues since the war in Vietnam, he was expelled from Bolivia, he was jailed for sneaking onto Fort Benning, Georgia, he founded the School of the America’s Watch, and finally he was laicized for advocating the ordination of women to the priesthood, even doing so on Vatican Radio (before being abruptly cut off).

Alvare, on the other hand, is a hero of the Catholic “right.” She was formerly a spokeswoman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and serves on Vatican committees. She opposes contraception and abortion, and is willing to argue her case in public, where she is sometimes even threatened with violence for what she says...

...Yet what most strongly united both speakers was the importance of the concept of conscience to each of them. Roy Bourgeois’ refusal to recant his opinion on women’s ordination was motivated by his conscience. Helen Alvare’s work to oppose the HHS mandate is motivated by her conscience. While the substances of their objections are different, the form is the same: conscience should not be violated."

https://catholicmoraltheology.com/t...teaching-which-unites-and-divides-the-church/
Click to expand...

Your conscious belief that abortion is a moral good does not give you license on the matter.
 
Nerdsperg said:
Try and learn that religions are just businesses. They know nothing about gid, life, death and what happens to you when you die after Covid. They make it up and change it as required. The Catholic church was in charge of young kids, many natives, and now 1000 or so graves are found.This is just what they do.
Click to expand...

What is this "gid" (sic) of which you speak?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top