Bishops defend Polish family

????

Currently there are 25 Catholics in the United States Senate, 16 Democrats, 9 Republicans, and 134 (out of 435) Catholics in the United States House of Representatives, including the current House Speaker John Boehner. Joseph Biden is a Catholic, the first ever elected Vice President.

the presidential elections of 1928 when the Democrats nominated Al Smith, a Catholic who was defeated

KERRY-CATHOLIC
KENNEDYS-CATHOLICS?

Um maybe you should at least Wiki a little before spouting off. My Catholic family is MOSTLY democrats still putting Santo Kennedy's pic next to Christs! Including the native american tsalagi Catholic(they belived already in a trinity so it was easy conversion- the rest are baptists or animists or combo..lol) part of my kin

See Reagan Democrats (catholics that voted Rep). See the swing votes. More Catholics are republican now in past deacde..but a very small percentage still.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_politics_in_the_United_States

Yet you choose the term "bastard" -calling "things" by their name according to you. This terminology focuses on and marginalizes (at best) the value of that child through the use of the term. Why do that?


So why not focus on them with your language instead of the child?


You're not breaking any new ground with this news.


So what?


This is true. But you can mitigate that suffering by treating people with some decency until they actually do something which warrants less than that.

This is where you are wrong. In the world, various relationships are defined - also within law. As Christians, we would not agree with many of them. Yet, they exist. Do you think people in Polyneysia, or Himbas in Namibia give the slightest as to what we think is moral or not? And, just to preassumpt the argument that those mentioned are not developed societies - do you think non-Christians (or non-Jews and non-Muslims, as laws related to marriage are more or less similar in the main religions) in Holland, Norway, UK and any other country where civil partnerships are defined and legally catered for - care what you think as conservative Catholic?

^get him to define what is "immoral" and then we're really off to the races.

It is very popular and trendy today to define one's own private morality usually along the lines of egoism and personal convenience. I happen to accept the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. It's as simple as that. You can accept it or reject it, but it provides the guidelines for what is moral and immoral.

The child may some day want to marry and be joined in a sacramental union before God and man. A child whose thoughtless parents did not even bother to have him christened is in for a problem not of his own making. Of course, he can attend catechism classes and be baptised, make hsi First Holy Communion and Confiramtion as an adult, but that may be a hassle and embarrassment to some. Should his negligent parents be allowed to attend the respective liturgies or just come to the booze-up afterwards? He may just have top settle for a scrap of paper from the registrar, but to many in Poland that is not a 'real marriage'.

yes, his choice.


no.

Just as a child who faces having other people's beliefs forced down his/her throat is.


All the Poles I know who had paperwork issues which got in the way of a church marriage either just forged documents or bribed the priest. Although I did once know a Canadian guy who wanted to convert to Catholicism so he could get married here without bribing the priest: he made such a pain in the arse of himself at the conversion classes (or whatever they're called) that the priest just signed the documentation and told him never to darken his door again.

As for the alleged topic of this thread, given that Poland has such a low birthrate but no real options when it comes to partnerships other than marriage, clearly Poland needs to introduce partnerships other than marriage: countries which have those have higher birthrates than Poland does!

Before making such a rash decison, one should consider whether that is the only reason they have a higher birthrate. Maybre it's due to Third World immigration or other factors.

But if it really didt turn out that non-sacramental hook-ups produced more progeny, then morality would still have to win out.
When morality and expediency clash, a loyal Catholic has no choice but to opt for morality.

And of course we see examples of that morality in the Polish church everyday - Mr. Maybach for example?
Mr. Paetz? That fool who immolated himself on a cemetery after molesting children... Take your pick.
Not to mention your beloved PIS leader who is gay as a maple (which is for me is not an issue an sich) but pretends to be the best catholic in the country :)

I wish someone had told Jimmy Savile, a Papal Knight, those pearls of wisdom.

Or the parents thought about it and decided not to have the children christened.

It is also popular for some to define their morality based on that of the majority. Innuendo isn't going to help anything at all in this discussion, is it?


Good for you. No challenges here.


as do other sources.


Why would choosing to embrace a faith be a source of embarrassment? If someone is embarrassed to believe something then I have to wonder as to why they would go through the bother. I'm not sure you've illustrated anything but an improbable scenario.

I certainly admire your devotion to the sanctity of the family unit, it is the most important of all elements in a healthy society but am kind of scratching my head as to why you've chosen to go after defenseless children with your ugly labels.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to my writings...I've got this really cool idea about how to teach morality. I think I'll start my story with people about to stone a woman to death for her sins...but then there'll be this message. I think you really ought to read it when it's done!

Without any consideration of what the future consequences that may have for the child...

I think there are bigger things to worry about

You're a liar.

If you did, you would follow the teachings about tolerance, love and forgiveness - but you don't. You only follow the aspects that appeal to your bitter, twisted nature. You're the worst sort of Catholic - the type who uses it for their own agenda.


Rubbish. If he has faith and belief, it will not be a "hassle" or "embarrassment". Why would it be?


Bribery of priests (and higher) seems to be very common - to the point where I wonder if they aren't almost introducing difficulties on purpose. I had problems too - thankfully, my wife's excellent relations with a priest managed to solve it without the need for bribery - but even he told her to get up to some chicanery with the documentation.


Because he's a nasty bully who picks on the defenseless.


So why don't you choose the moral approach and stop using terms like "bastard" towards innocent children?

I would never call a real illegitimate child a bastard, but this is a discussion forum for sharing ideas and opinions. A Catholic is duty-bound to evangelise, and that means reminiding people of the Church's teachings. The PC way is to use feel-good eupehmisms for fornication, adultry, betrayal of spouses, breaking the marriage oath, butchering the unborn, because the PC types believe if you can make it sound nicer and prettier then it's OK., so go for it. And people do. What a rise the word 'bastard' caused here on PF. Wouldn't it be better direct your outrage at those who bring such kids into the world!? It only shows that PC is merely a slightly facelifted version of totalitarian mind control. PRL also did not attack many of the evils taking palce in the country bzt preferred to zero in (jail, beat, fine even kill) those who dared to openly talk about them.

No: it is far better to direct our outrage at those will twist and abuse the words of Jesus so as to justify their own hatred and bitterness.

WHo is it twisting Jesus' words?! Jesus was merciful and forgiving. Rather than see a harlot stoned, he saved her, but on one condition: go and sin no more. Everyone who is contrite, regrets his sins and does penance is forgiven. The trouble is the PC types give sins fancy names and have no intention of 'sinning no more'.

What about mortal sin?

All sins can be forgiven

"A person who repents of their sin, intends to live a new life of grace, and receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation will be forgiven of all their sins (mortal sins in particular must be confessed in the Sacrament). "

As the ultimate perpetually an permanent sacrifice for sin..Christ has us covered (does not mean vengances, laws of man or other unpleasantries will not affect a murderer. Only that God's relationship has that option; to return to his company. Both by CCC and biblical statutes.)

"A person who dies in mortal sin cannot enter the kingdom of heaven and is doomed to eternal suffering in hell. "

Thre you have it. So don't skip those confessions, eh dude? And try not to get excommunicated?
what are mortal sins? meh not gonna list it. Read St Thomas Aquinas..he spells it out nice and plain and listed. Or go to a Diocese website

( I suspect the previous question was just being trolly..but there is the short answer ,compliments of CCC)

Congress has never been more dysfunctional because the Catholic Church is trying to get the Republicans to legislate morality.


With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties

The Church didn't require a priest at marriage until 1563, so for approximately 1200 years all people had to do was move in together which is what they did.


You're the barking dog of antiquity:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_%28philosophy%29


Thomas Aquinas popularized the idea that if anyone disagreed with the Church teachings (no freedom of thought) they would be guilty of heresy and it wasn't good enough to excommunicate the offender, they had to be killed. But before being killed they had to be tortured (like the ancient Greek Cynics The Church believes that you find God through pain) so that they would find God and enter the gates of heaven. That's why in the Middle Ages heretics were burnt at the stake and why the Reformation was so bloody. Scripture doesn't mention mortal sin. That's something the Church cooked up.

Dude..Who are all the CATHOLIC republicans you speak of. How many are in Electoral College? We are rare and hassled by family all the time! MOST CATHOLICS ARE DEMOCRATS.(see above). You keep parroting it-give ONE solid example? Who when ? Did they meet even the Pope-are they often invited to Archbishops Councils?

You want to bash Republicans and Catholics so bad you are making them into a chimera. You must be very extreme Left to be so focused and obsessed on unsubstatiated theory. you may truthfully and correctly say radical Right supporters. But the rest is whiney biased hogwash. And kinda offensive.

And you are unlikely a US Catholic are you...or you would know this.


"SURVEY SAYS?" Bzzzzt!
A simplistic view... the Church still had rules. As did non Christians. Which "The Church " do you refer? After it as called Catholic?As did non Christians. There were many SPECIFIC rules for marriage even in primitive culture.. though no piece of paper. Modern property law was not as it was then, nor couples raising children themselves instead of in big family clan units. I know Cherokee didn't just "shack up " and it is instant marriage bann.

Because it was all about land ownership-specially the later styles of marriage. At least these customs provided women with some limited freedoms.


blogs.wp.missouristate.edu/creativewritingcontest/2008/07/19/marriage

However Ancient Egypt did


In Catholic Scotland it was required to obtain a marriage license or to have the banns read in church for three Sundays in a row

Wedding rings-more durable than paper is as old as 2800BC Egypt
Which finger is ring finger is as old as 3rdBC Greece
Marriage Customs from 200 N. EU like carrying the bride over threshold are with us today


churchofancientways.org/banns.html

**try reading "Origin of Family, Private Property and the State by F. Engels
Dickerman, Lysander. "The Condition of Women in Ancient Egypt."
Gilchrist, A. G. "A Curious Scottish Marriage Custom."
Hartland, E. Sidney. "Marriage Superstitions
Wedding Traditions - Excerpts From
"Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things"by Charles Panati

Your use of "cynic" is clever but does not apply in context. they were a cult following of Antisthenes (socrates lesser disciple angry that favor was given to the monied student; Plato. asn had a political bent against teh affluent which is were his preaching morality =no materials craop came from) who became famous for being alybaout rabble and for viscious physical attacks on the rich Good reads:

The Athenian Agora & Socrates in Agora by the Am Schol of Classical studies: Athens
Daily Life in Ancient Greece By R. Flaciere
Any tongue in cheek work by Xenophon
Ancient Greece at Work by Glotz

Oh and The Holy Bible. It really is a good read..agree or not with its content. New testament mostly applies to today with exceptions Jesus mentioned from deuteronomy and numbers. And the Didache...though you may not consider THAT scripture even if it is a compilation done by the living apostles of Jesus and their disciples. The Scriptures do not use word "MORTAL" but you are shaving hens teeth. However Jesus, John and Paul ALL address the sins of eternal Death and their works are considered 'Scriptures" The Catholic Church named the deadly sins venial and mortal. But they were named and split in the time of Christ. The sins you could chance dying with versus the sins that were one way tickets to hot town.

wow what a waste of my classical education..... the internet.*sigh*

Penalising murder and theft is also legislating morality. So is sanctioning libel suits (bearing false witness agaisnt one's neighbour).

Fortunatly legislation is no longer predicated by unprovable ideas espoused by a religion.

But they are predicated upon the Decalogue, the most perfect code of human behaviour ever created. If you disagree, which of the 10 would you eliminate?

We need more people stealing, lying, killing, badmouthing their parents, betraying their spouses, breakingf up famileis, etc., etc. We haven't got there yet, but PC is making sure we're well on our way.

No longer. Common sense, equality, freedom and laicity are more sensible benchmarks.

And which of the 10 Commandments would you strike out as no longer applicable?

The first, second, third, fourth and fifth have no place in the legal system of a modern state. And the tenth seems to have been completely forgotten by society and of debatable relevance with regard to a legal system.

I can see where you favour a blasphemous and derisive attitude towards other people's religious faith (1, 2, 3) and believe in bladmouthing and disrespecting parents, but I didn't think you had fallen as low a scumbag as Delph who advocates murdering 160,000 Rydzyk supporters. You have gone a step further by calling for the depenalising of murder (No. 5 is 'Nie zabijaj'). Or do you limit yourself to butchering the unborn and euthanising doddering old fools who are needless taking up a hospital bed?

Commandment number five is honour mother & father. Does your son do that? Pity he's too old to be stoned (or at least stoned in the OT meaning).


What a surprise to see you siding with the people who think that anybody who draws a picture of a certain kiddie fiddler should be put to death. Neither state imposed religion nor blasphemy have any place in the legal system of a modern state.