Not really. The Modernists are like the Bolsheviks, unhinged from reality, denying human nature, miserable, but fiercely determined to destroy and make all of us miserable
Fr K Orwell - LOL! You vote for a Party that calls abortion “healthcare” and insists minors can have sex change operations without parental consent - you lack credibility at a very serious level
TJM - Inasmuch as you have lost your grasp on reality - you maintain that Trump won the last election, among other examples - I know my words have no impact on you. Others may benefit.
There is no doctrine that requires that a Catholic vote "This" way or "That" way. As much as you believe that such a doctrine exists, you are incapable of grasping that it does not.
The Church in its wisdom respects the conscience of the voter. In your foolishness and given your Trumpian blindness, you do not.
The Church it its wisdom does not presume to know the mind of God beyond that which has been revealed. You presume not only to know the mind of God, which is foolish, but to control God's choices and actions which compounds your halfwittedness.
Other, like William above, will throw in their lot with you and your foolishness. Most reasonable, faithful Catholics will not.
Father Kavanaugh, I have found it interesting that you have been condemned by folks who support pro-abortion Donald Trump, as well as additional pro-abortion Republican politicians.
Many think they are using it in the sense of the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X. He was, it has been said, "...trying to save the very essence of the Christian faith fron destruction."
That which is, simply, modern has been condemned by some, albeit unwittingly.
"Modernity" can't be condemned since it is all we have, at present.....
In regard to his support for politicians (Democrats) who support abortion:
Father Kavanaugh has been attacked repeatedly by folks who support pro-abortion Republican politicians.
Among said folks are those who support Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has determined that it is acceptable to kill unborn babies who were conceived via rape, incest...or when the mother's life is at risk (supposedly). One Republican politician after another also favors abortion in those circumstances.
There is also the following:
Donald Trump, for example, has determined that he has the right to establish three circumstances under which an unborn baby may be killed. (One Republican politician after another acts in that manner.)
If Donald Trump has that right, then each Democratic politician has that right.
Therefore, a Democratic politician is free to declare that there are four, five, six...whatever...circumstances under which abortion is acceptable.
I am amazed that folks who support pro-abortion Republican politicians have cast stones at Father Kavanaugh.
Wow, a religious argument turning to politics. How unusual for THIS blog!
As I read all of this inane drivel which passes for discourse I cannot help but think of George Washington's warning in his farewell address:
"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views…"
The characterizations these days are far broader, the principle holds: The interests of political advancement eventuate in parties mischaracterizing each other and that is what all of us are sick of today. If Democrats and Republicans spent their capital on selling what they can do and actually doing it, we might not have such a toxic political atmosphere. But NOOOOO! We have to spend all of our energy, time and money trying to mischaracterize our opponents. And why not? We never have to take responsibility when all we have to do is blame.
Seamus - When a person is factually wrong, it is not a "mischaracterization" to correct the error.
When a person makes a false accusation, it is not "mischaracterization" to defend oneself.
When two people have a difference of opinion, it is entirely appropriate for them to discuss, even heatedly, their reasons they hold their positions. Our Founding Fathers were able to present the new nation, and us, with our Constitution only after extensive and often heated arguments about such things as religious liberty and church-state relations.
As we celebrate the 247th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, I am very glad they had those debates.
WHERE did I say in my post that people are not allowed to defend themselves against false accusations or correct errors about themselves or the policies they espouse? Where did I say that differences of opinion should not be debated?
Or are you just trying to give us all a textbook example of such mischaracterizations?
Most of us would LOVE some honest debate on the order of what our founding fathers offered us. What we don't want or need is more "gotchas" and name-calling. We're smart enough for ourselves to figure out what each side has in the way of policy. What we don't need is more Democrats telling us what Republicans are and more Republicans telling us what Democrats are. I can already tell you what BOTH parties are: Dishonest.
Maybe a couple of examples might help:
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib regularly called President Trump the "racist-in-chief".
Donald Trump referred to his 2016 opponent as "crooked Hillary".
Hillary Clinton called Trump voters "deplorables".
Senator Rand Paul called former Congresswoman Liz Cheney a "warmonger".
Liz Cheney told us that Senator Paul puts "terrorists first and America second."
NOT ONE of the politicians mentioned above want to actually discuss and negotiate about policy. They want to win elections and enjoy their sinecures of power in perpetuity. The campaign for re-election begins before they are even sworn in to office. All of this verbal infantilism has one goal: Impress the base.
George Washington warned us about this. As long as people have someone to blame, responsibility is comfortably beyond reach. We're all sick of this B.S. and most of the people posting here are so caught up in this puerile game that they can't even see it, be it Church issues or politics. You all disgust me. That's not name-calling. It's just my physical reaction to your hackneyed, boilerplate "dialogue".
"You all disgust me. That's not name-calling. It's just my physical reaction to your hackneyed, boilerplate "dialogue". I'm sorry to hear you feel this way. Of course, you are free to go elsewhere to find viewpoints consistent with what your constitution can handle. You are additionally free to not read our discussions only to respond combatively.
As an Easterner, I focus on the Church, spirituality and liturgy; the secular, particularly politics not as much. We aren't likely to solve, really, anything within this forum except to use it to commiserate as each one of us sees fit.
16 comments:
Alas, this represents a misunderstanding of both "modernism" and "tradition."
Not really. The Modernists are like the Bolsheviks, unhinged from reality, denying human nature, miserable, but fiercely determined to destroy and make all of us miserable
And in that 4:08 pm post, TJM shows one aspect of the misunderstanding I noted.
Fr K Orwell - LOL! You vote for a Party that calls abortion “healthcare” and insists minors can have sex change operations without parental consent - you lack credibility at a very serious level
This cartoon is 100% cogent and 100% correct. No misunderstandings here, folks.
William,
You know who has a guilty conscience!
TJM - Inasmuch as you have lost your grasp on reality - you maintain that Trump won the last election, among other examples - I know my words have no impact on you. Others may benefit.
There is no doctrine that requires that a Catholic vote "This" way or "That" way. As much as you believe that such a doctrine exists, you are incapable of grasping that it does not.
The Church in its wisdom respects the conscience of the voter. In your foolishness and given your Trumpian blindness, you do not.
The Church it its wisdom does not presume to know the mind of God beyond that which has been revealed. You presume not only to know the mind of God, which is foolish, but to control God's choices and actions which compounds your halfwittedness.
Other, like William above, will throw in their lot with you and your foolishness. Most reasonable, faithful Catholics will not.
Father Kavanaugh, I have found it interesting that you have been condemned by folks who support pro-abortion Donald Trump, as well as additional pro-abortion Republican politicians.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Shouldn't this illustration perhaps say Modernity vs. Tradition?
Doesn't modernism, as a philosophy, mean something entirely different?
That which developed organically remains compatible with tradition.
Byz - "Modernism" gets misused by many folks.
Many think they are using it in the sense of the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X. He was, it has been said, "...trying to save the very essence of the Christian faith fron destruction."
That which is, simply, modern has been condemned by some, albeit unwittingly.
"Modernity" can't be condemned since it is all we have, at present.....
In regard to his support for politicians (Democrats) who support abortion:
Father Kavanaugh has been attacked repeatedly by folks who support pro-abortion Republican politicians.
Among said folks are those who support Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has determined that it is acceptable to kill unborn babies who were conceived via rape, incest...or when the mother's life is at risk (supposedly). One Republican politician after another also favors abortion in those circumstances.
There is also the following:
Donald Trump, for example, has determined that he has the right to establish three circumstances under which an unborn baby may be killed. (One Republican politician after another acts in that manner.)
If Donald Trump has that right, then each Democratic politician has that right.
Therefore, a Democratic politician is free to declare that there are four, five, six...whatever...circumstances under which abortion is acceptable.
I am amazed that folks who support pro-abortion Republican politicians have cast stones at Father Kavanaugh.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Wow, a religious argument turning to politics. How unusual for THIS blog!
As I read all of this inane drivel which passes for discourse I cannot help but think of George Washington's warning in his farewell address:
"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views…"
The characterizations these days are far broader, the principle holds: The interests of political advancement eventuate in parties mischaracterizing each other and that is what all of us are sick of today. If Democrats and Republicans spent their capital on selling what they can do and actually doing it, we might not have such a toxic political atmosphere. But NOOOOO! We have to spend all of our energy, time and money trying to mischaracterize our opponents. And why not? We never have to take responsibility when all we have to do is blame.
Blame away, losers all!
Seamus - When a person is factually wrong, it is not a "mischaracterization" to correct the error.
When a person makes a false accusation, it is not "mischaracterization" to defend oneself.
When two people have a difference of opinion, it is entirely appropriate for them to discuss, even heatedly, their reasons they hold their positions. Our Founding Fathers were able to present the new nation, and us, with our Constitution only after extensive and often heated arguments about such things as religious liberty and church-state relations.
As we celebrate the 247th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, I am very glad they had those debates.
WHAT?
WHERE did I say in my post that people are not allowed to defend themselves against false accusations or correct errors about themselves or the policies they espouse? Where did I say that differences of opinion should not be debated?
Or are you just trying to give us all a textbook example of such mischaracterizations?
Most of us would LOVE some honest debate on the order of what our founding fathers offered us. What we don't want or need is more "gotchas" and name-calling. We're smart enough for ourselves to figure out what each side has in the way of policy. What we don't need is more Democrats telling us what Republicans are and more Republicans telling us what Democrats are. I can already tell you what BOTH parties are: Dishonest.
Maybe a couple of examples might help:
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib regularly called President Trump the "racist-in-chief".
Donald Trump referred to his 2016 opponent as "crooked Hillary".
Hillary Clinton called Trump voters "deplorables".
Senator Rand Paul called former Congresswoman Liz Cheney a "warmonger".
Liz Cheney told us that Senator Paul puts "terrorists first and America second."
NOT ONE of the politicians mentioned above want to actually discuss and negotiate about policy. They want to win elections and enjoy their sinecures of power in perpetuity. The campaign for re-election begins before they are even sworn in to office. All of this verbal infantilism has one goal: Impress the base.
George Washington warned us about this. As long as people have someone to blame, responsibility is comfortably beyond reach. We're all sick of this B.S. and most of the people posting here are so caught up in this puerile game that they can't even see it, be it Church issues or politics. You all disgust me. That's not name-calling. It's just my physical reaction to your hackneyed, boilerplate "dialogue".
Seamus Malone,
"You all disgust me. That's not name-calling. It's just my physical reaction to your hackneyed, boilerplate "dialogue". I'm sorry to hear you feel this way. Of course, you are free to go elsewhere to find viewpoints consistent with what your constitution can handle. You are additionally free to not read our discussions only to respond combatively.
As an Easterner, I focus on the Church, spirituality and liturgy; the secular, particularly politics not as much. We aren't likely to solve, really, anything within this forum except to use it to commiserate as each one of us sees fit.
Prayers for you.
Seamus - If using "verbal infantilism" is what it takes for politicians to impress the base, is the problem with the politicians or the base?
I would suggest it is the latter.
Post a Comment