Quote:
"They can throw around 'Thomistic' thought and 'subsidiarity' and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they're talking about," she said.
Breitbart is obviously sensationalist but I believe they were likely referencing the "severely backwards gender relationship" comments.AstroAg17 said:
That hardly sounds like trashing.
Quote:
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together with "the 98%" create an opportunity?
Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them. Just wondering . . .
Quote:
y ....", I am simply referring to polling data that shows Trump leads w/ evangelicals by count of 55% to 2%, and Hillary leads w/ Catholics by a count of 45% to 35%. Obviously not all evangelicals support Trump and not all Catholics support Clinton.
The Catholic Church has little economic power to wield against your average priest or nun. Most priests are extremely well educated people (as evidenced by their college degrees, and then 7 years in seminary at minimum along with continuing education) who earn something along the lines of $11k/year plus room and board. As an example, Father Jerry Jung of Holy Cross Chapel has a Bachelors in Economics from Georgetown, an MBA from the University of Chicago, and a JD from Northwestern; I believe he also has several degrees in Divinity from the University of the Holy Cross in Rome; he lives in a small apartment and shares a used Corolla with his fellow priests.7thGenTexan said:Quote:
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together with "the 98%" create an opportunity?
Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them. Just wondering . . .
7thGenTexan said:Quote:
y ....", I am simply referring to polling data that shows Trump leads w/ evangelicals by count of 55% to 2%, and Hillary leads w/ Catholics by a count of 45% to 35%. Obviously not all evangelicals support Trump and not all Catholics support Clinton.
I guess they forgot to poll black evangelicals. Racists.
Quote:
Hillary leads w/ Catholics by a count of 45% to 35%
Quote:
Catholic church pays isn't much leverage for your average religious. I'm not sure the Catholic Church qualifies as a "dictatorship" since you can freely leave at any time. I've never understood the ideas behind "we want the freedom to still be Catholic while not believing what the Catholic Church teaches", it doesn't make sense. If it was any other club, it'd be ludicrous, imagine someone bemoaning they can't be Vegan because it interferes with their tailgate BBQ; it's nonsensical.
Economic power over Priests is irrelevant.Sq16Aggie2006 said:The Catholic Church has little economic power to wield against your average priest or nun. Most priests are extremely well educated people (as evidenced by their college degrees, and then 7 years in seminary at minimum along with continuing education) who earn something along the lines of $11k/year plus room and board. As an example, Father Jerry Jung of Holy Cross Chapel has a Bachelors in Economics from Georgetown, an MBA from the University of Chicago, and a JD from Northwestern; I believe he also has several degrees in Divinity from the University of the Holy Cross in Rome; he lives in a small apartment and shares a used Corolla with his fellow priests.7thGenTexan said:Quote:
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together with "the 98%" create an opportunity?
Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them. Just wondering . . .
The pittance that the Catholic church pays isn't much leverage for your average religious. I'm not sure the Catholic Church qualifies as a "dictatorship" since you can freely leave at any time. I've never understood the ideas behind "we want the freedom to still be Catholic while not believing what the Catholic Church teaches", it doesn't make sense. If it was any other club, it'd be ludicrous, imagine someone bemoaning they can't be Vegan because it interferes with their tailgate BBQ; it's nonsensical.
Quote:
as NEVER ONCE in 2,000 years reversed any dogmatic teaching, and it never will.
Yeah...I'm no Catholic but I'm pretty sure what he claimed isn't true.7thGenTexan said:Quote:
as NEVER ONCE in 2,000 years reversed any dogmatic teaching, and it never will.
Is the church's teaching on slavery dogmatic?
Silent For Too Long said:Yeah...I'm no Catholic but I'm pretty sure what he claimed isn't true.7thGenTexan said:Quote:
as NEVER ONCE in 2,000 years reversed any dogmatic teaching, and it never will.
Is the church's teaching on slavery dogmatic?
Neither major candidate has a worldview that is consistent with a Christian worldview. As I saw one preacher say, "for what does it profit a man to gain the Supreme Court, and forfeit his soul?".GoHomeLeg said:
Team Hillary hates Christians. The Supreme Court will be shaped to reflect their (once) hidden opinions.
RetiredAg said:Neither major candidate has a worldview that is consistent with a Christian worldview. As I saw one preacher say, "for what does it profit a man to gain the Supreme Court, and forfeit his soul?".GoHomeLeg said:
Team Hillary hates Christians. The Supreme Court will be shaped to reflect their (once) hidden opinions.
That's fine. Just don't pretend the choice to vote for Trump is guided by Christian principles. It makes me think of a recent interview Robert Jeffress (pastor at First Baptist Dallas) did saying he doesn't want some "meek and mild leader" that "turns the other cheek". He wants a leaders that looks like a polar opposite of Christ. That tells me who he is really following.GoHomeLeg said:RetiredAg said:Neither major candidate has a worldview that is consistent with a Christian worldview. As I saw one preacher say, "for what does it profit a man to gain the Supreme Court, and forfeit his soul?".GoHomeLeg said:
Team Hillary hates Christians. The Supreme Court will be shaped to reflect their (once) hidden opinions.
My vote for Trump is to do what little I can to influence the make up of the Supreme Court. Hillary will destroy us. I do not approve if the things he has done. I certainly don't approve of the Clintons. Thanks Perot.
You assume. She's a known commodity. Trump is highly unstable and actually concerns me far more. Regardless, whoever wins doesn't matter. Christ is still on the throne, and neither side in this election warrant abandoning Christian principles for. I even saw Ben Carson say that there are times we have to put Christian values on hold to get things done. That is an alarming mindset.GoHomeLeg said:Agreed, however Clinton will do far more damage to this country than good.RetiredAg said:GoHomeLeg said:RetiredAg said:GoHomeLeg said:
Neither candidate promotes a worldview that is consistent with Christian teaching.
