leanunachriost:

Living in His hands: Things that are on the Catholic tag and I cannot understand why they would be there (excluding pron)

youallareloved:

definitionofbrotherhood:

getmetoanunnery:

lilacturtl:

1. “Tebowing.” Tim Tebow is not a Catholic. He’s a fundamentalist Protestant. Why are Catholic kids emulating him?

2. Francis Chan and his ilk. Francis Chan is not a Catholic. He’s an evangelical Protestant, arguably on…

Excuse me? What is so wrong about reading Protestant books or learning some teachings from them? They’re Christian too. I don’t know much about Francis Chan, but I listen to Bethel sermons all the time. I know my faith well enough to catch what is heretical and what is good solid teaching. Just because some Protestants don’t like us doesn’t mean that we have to shun everything they believe. We have the same Savior. I’m sorry, but I though we were supposed to love our brothers and sisters. 

Peace and blessings.

We don’t get our teachings from any Protestant. We get our teachings from the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. Sorry, that’s how it is. Some Protestants might teach the same things, but that doesn’t mean we should take things from them. It’s dangerous, and it’s what leads people away from the Church.

I’m glad you’re strong in your faith, and can recognize heresies. That’s fantastic, actually. But when someone quotes a notorious anti-Catholic, that gives his voice credence. When his voice has credence, everything he says has credence.

We, as Catholics, believe that the Church has the fullness of Truth in her teachings. If we truly believe this, we cannot let her enemies gain traction. It sounds harsh, but it’s the truth. It doesn’t mean that we love them less. In fact, it means that we love them all the more. Love is about bringing people to heaven, and if that means not giving recognition to those voices that spout heresy, even if they aren’t spouting it at the time, then so be it.

That’s an interesting point.  I agree with some of this; I do think you’re correct in that we should be wary when quoting notorious anti-Catholics as a supporting source, especially when speaking to an audience that might not be inclined to do very strong critical thinking.  And of course, we look to the Church for Truth; we don’t get our teachings from Protestants or any other faith.  However, when we ourselves are learning, we should evaluate the truth of the statement using our own knowledge and reason, and not the speaker.  That’s pretty much an ad hominem, right?  Isn’t it true that a lot of religions do have truth, but are just lacking the fullness of the faith?  

We learn from people of other faiths all the time, without making their entire system of beliefs our doctrine.  Dr. King, Gandhi, Mohammed have all said many things about faith that I think anyone could learn from, but I don’t think that means that we are less in communion with the Church.  

In regards to Tim Tebow: I think his visible faith is admirable, especially in his work environment.  I would say that’s something for which I could look up to him (among others) since I often struggle with that.  

But Mickey, I’m interested in this if you have a response!  Also, how stoked are you for this wedding in a week and change? :)

ihaveabsolutelynoidea:

step one:

take foot

step two:

kick their teeth in

include extra kicks as needed for the following-comparing abortion to slavery, bringing up cisdudes and their feelings or sperm or whatever, using cutesy pictures of babies talking inside the womb, saying something to the effect of “real women don’t have abortions, calling abortion murder, equating all women with uteruses, invalidating the experiences of rape victims, generally being annoying 

Well this is pretty unkind.  No matter what the belief in question is, I sincerely hope most people realize that this is no way to argue (in the true sense of the word) to defend a point or make a message heard.  It is incredibly sad to see that this is what argument has become; instead of evaluating the truth of an idea, we have regressed to badly-behaved children who, in lieu of real conversation, can only think to suggest violence.  

I think everyone should do themselves (and their beliefs) a favor and follow the general rule that if you would not realistically do what you are saying - such as kicking someone’s teeth in, for example - then don’t say it.  You haven’t proven anything by doing so and you have discredited yourself by demonstrating your inability to engage at an intellectual level higher than that of a six year old.

badwolfcomplex:

barticles:

This quote from Andrew Sullivan seems to be quite popular at the moment:

“[The Catholic Church] barely protested when the last president authorized torture, but the Catholic hierarchy is now determined to use what’s left of its authority to organize protests this summer against their right to deny insured contraception to Catholic and non-Catholic employees in schools and hospitals. This will be their cause - not saving universal healthcare from repeal, not bringing illegal immigrants out of the shadows, not protecting the poor, but affirming that religious liberty is at stake if they cannot keep the pill from their female employees’ insurance, 98 percent of whom use it at some point in their lives anyway.”

And that would indeed be a powerful indictment, were it not for the fact that it is demonstrably false.

See, they got this newfangled thing called the Google. It lets you finds things. What sort of things? Oh, things like this:

Letter to Congress on Human Rights and Torture: 2004

and this:

USCCB Position on Health Care Reform

In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care. This teaching is rooted in the biblical call to heal the sick and to serve “the least of these,” our concern for human life and dignity, and the principle of the common good. Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans do not have health insurance. According to the Catholic bishops of the United States, the current health care system is in need of fundamental reform. To learn about Catholic teaching on health care in more detail, read the full statement by the United States Catholic Bishops, A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform, at usccb.org/sdwp/national/comphealth.shtml.

And this:

In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, “[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive….

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes “enforcement only” immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:

Earned Legalization: An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship…

And this:

Federal Budget Choices Must Protect Poor, Vulnerable People, Says U.S. Bishops’ Conference

 

April 17, 2012

Recent letters echo bishops’ consistent message that federal budget must form

‘circle of protection’ around ‘the least of these’

And this:

Stephen Schneck, a political scientist at Catholic University, says he thinks [Paul] Ryan is “completely missing the boat and not understanding the real heart, the real core, of Catholic social teaching.”

Schneck says Catholicism sees everyone as part of a mystical body, serving one another. True, the New Testament does not specifically speak to the government’s role. “But charities and individuals and churches can’t do it all,” Schneck says. “When charities are already stretched to their limit, Catholic social teaching expects the state to step up and to fill that gap.”

And — well, you get the point. Although I disagree with it on many issues, I recognize that the Catholic church is, if nothing else, consistent, and consistently outspoken, about matters of public policy.

Right now, for instance, the church is suing Alabama over its tough new immigration law.

Why hasn’t that received the same attention as the church’s resistance to the contraceptive mandate? Don’t blame the church for that — blame the media and the church’s critics.

Of course, Sullivan might reply that Catholics are organizing protests over the contraception mandate, which takes more effort than just writing a letter. But if he had bothered to check with The Google, he would have found that

Catholic activists protest torture practice

They say immoral, illegal policies of Bush administration remain

and

Two Catholic priests may go to prison over torture protest

and so on. Then there’s this:

the pontiff has made the Vatican a leader in seeking to address climate change. Under this pope’s leadership, the Vatican announced that it would become the world’s first carbon-neutral state.

He has said that the leaders of the world must do much more to feed the poor, fight disease and support the interests of workers rather than the bottom lines of corporations.

And he has bluntly said that Bush’s preemptive attack on Iraq and the subsequent occupation of that country does not follow the Catholic doctrine of a “just war.”

Before the invasion, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked whether the attack might be considered morally justified under the just-war standard. “Certainly not,” he replied, explaining that “the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save.”

After the war began, Cardinal Ratzinger said of the global protest movement to prevent the attack: “it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction.”

… not to mention the church’s demands a couple decade ago for a nuclear freeze, and — oh, enough already.

Somebody is certainly being selective in their outrage. But it isn’t the Catholic Church.

“Somebody is certainly being selective in their outrage. But it isn’t the Catholic Church.”