PDA

View Full Version : Need help converting a Catholic




nexalacer
11-27-2007, 07:43 AM
I'm struggling writing a response to this. Can anybody help me out? He's an old high school buddy and he's Catholic. How can I answer the just war, abortion, and gay marriage things in the best way?


In regards to Romney, since politics is social morality, and since social morality is society's seeking of the good, then the most important issues in American politics should be moral issues. That being the case, Romney seems to be the best all-around candidate for issues such as abortion, just-war, same-sex marriages, and so on. Unfortunately I don't think he will get the nomination, which will most likely go to Giuliani.

Hope
11-27-2007, 07:50 AM
Um, I'm pretty sure that the Catholic Church does not condone the Iraq war as a "just war."

And honestly I can't begin to help you here, since your friend sounds like someone who is trying to use philosophy like a kid who stumbles across his dad's gun. He'll be lucky if his foot is the only thing he shoots off with the non sequitur statements he's making.

kylejack
11-27-2007, 07:56 AM
I'm struggling writing a response to this. Can anybody help me out? He's an old high school buddy and he's Catholic. How can I answer the just war, abortion, and gay marriage things in the best way?

WHOA! Romney NEVER talks about Just War Theory! I don't even know if Mormons subscribe to it.

But do you know who does talk about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hCKZmkF0VU

The whole thing is good, but the highlights are 4:45-6:45. The dude's been talking about Just War Theory on the House floor for years! Its possible Romney's never even heard of it. This speech was given on the House floor on September 4, 2002, over 6 months before the Iraq invasion.

mmarcman22
11-27-2007, 08:44 AM
If she is a real Catholic, she should follow the principals of the church. Which candidate most exemplifies the principals of the church? To me, its not Mitt Romney. Even though Ron Paul is a Protestant, he leads his life better than most Catholics today. The most important issue looked at by the Catholic Church is Abortion.

iddo
11-27-2007, 08:49 AM
The late Pope did not condone the Iraq war as a just war, nor did he condone the war in Afghanistan as a just war:
Pope's spokesman Dr. Joaqun Navarro-Valls: ...the pope believes that the extremists directly responsible for the attacks on the United States could and should be distinguished from the wider threat of Islamic fundamentalism and that any response should be limited to punishing the guilty. (September 23, 2001)
I say: NO TO WAR! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between states, the noble exercise of diplomacy; these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons, and as I think of the all too numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. Bethlehem reminds us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side by side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, I say to you that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say about the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the charter of the United Nations Organisation and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations. (January 13, 2003) (links (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Just_war_theory))
If your buddy believes in the Christian just war theory and is a Catholic, he most certainly shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney.

mmarcman22
11-27-2007, 08:54 AM
Could a US attack on Iraq be considered a just war?

This question is sometimes simplified to the question of whether we condone or condemn the actions of Saddam Hussein. However, this is not the essential question here, even if the legitimacy of his authority were to be questioned.

The morality and conditions for a just war were very well explained by Fr. Iscara in his erudite article in the July 2002 issue of The Angelus (pp.2-16), inspiring himself from St. Thomas Aquinas (ST, IIa IIae, Q. 40, A.1). He there points out that the application of these principles to determine the morality of a particular conflict can be very difficult, given the complexity of actual situations (p.11).

The first condition for a war to be just is that it is declared by a lawful or legitimate authority. It is certainly true that the US Congress has the authority to declare a war for the self-defense of United States territory or citizens. It is also certain that its concern for the common good of the United States also means that it must have some concern for the common good of the globe as a whole, given the mutual interdependence of nations. However, it does not at all have the authority to act as an international policeman, for the international common good is not its responsibility. For it to do so would be to attack the sovereignty of other nations. No nation has the right to declare war on another nation that is not a threat to it. Furthermore, a body of nations cannot have the authority to make such a declaration of war, since it has no sovereignty. It is true, however, that the people can rebel against an unjust ruler who has lost his right to rule, and appeal for foreign aid. This does not appear to be the case in Iraq, with the exception of exiled liberal dissidents. The United States would have the moral right to declare war on Iraq only if Iraq posed a real threat to United States security (or to that of United States allies). This has not at all been demonstrated. The existence of weapons of mass destruction or Iraq’s ability to use them has not been demonstrated, nor has the use of Iraq as a base for terrorism.

The second condition for a just war is that there must be a just cause, such as defense against an unjust attack or recuperation of what has been unjustly taken. A presumed, imaginary, or even possible problem of terrorist bases or the existence of weapons of mass destruction could not constitute a just cause. Another aspect of the just cause is that it must be proportionate to the evil, death, destruction, and human suffering that could be caused by the war. Since modern wars are indiscriminate and attack civilians just as much as military personnel, it cannot be conceived that a war of this kind could be successful without a great deal of suffering for the citizens of Iraq. There is a manifest lack of proportionality here that makes any reasonable person wonder what the real, underlying reason for such a proposed war or invasion could be. If it were, for example, United States self-interest by guaranteeing the supply of oil, then it would be manifestly unjust. Here it is also to be mentioned that a war is only just if there is a good chance of a rapid, successful victory with a minimum of casualties. The specter of Vietnam makes one wonder if this really is the case.

The third condition described by St. Thomas for a just war is a right intention, and this in the objective domain, namely that it be truly the re-establishment of justice which is aimed at. However, this is not at all the case. Iraq has done no injustice to the United States. The absence of a right intention is also manifest by the fact the United States is not insisting that Israel live up to UN demands as it is with Iraq. To the contrary, the embargo against Iraq has caused the death of many children, estimated by some as many as one million. In this regard, a war can only be just if all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted. This does not at all appear to be the case, which is why other nations, that do not stand to gain as much, are not interested in participating.

Consequently, the proposed war on Iraq is not morally licit. This does not mean, however, that American serviceman could not fight in such a conflict, even if they were aware that it is not based on moral principles. It is their duty to defend their country, and once a war were declared it would be necessary for them to do so. It is rather strange that it is the Arab country that has been most tolerant towards its relatively large Chaldean Christian minority which is being threatened in this way. One hopes that it will not be a repeat of Kosovo, in which the NATO invasion brought as a consequence the destruction of over 100 monasteries and churches, most of which had survived 500 years of Moslem rule. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

mmarcman22
11-27-2007, 09:05 AM
Abortion is crime against society, says Pope Benedict

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Abortion is a crime of aggression not only against the unborn, but also against society, Pope Benedict XVI said.

"Children have the right to be born and to grow in the midst of a family founded on matrimony, where the parents are the first educators of children in the faith and where they can grow to full human and spiritual maturity," the pope said Dec. 3.

Meeting with the presidents of Latin American bishops' committees for the family and for life, the pope urged them to work together, sharing the programs and approaches that are most successful in their countries.

"Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family," he said.

"For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself," the pope said.

Legalized abortion has laid the groundwork for acceptance of the destruction of embryos in scientific research, he said.

The result is that human life is reduced "to an object or a mere instrument. When it reaches this level, society itself suffers and its foundations shake, with all classes at risk," he said.

The key to addressing the situation, he said, is to strengthen and defend the traditional family, which is the first place in society where human life is welcomed and treasured.

"Your task as pastors is to present with all its richness the extraordinary value of matrimony which, as a natural institution, is the patrimony of humanity," he said.

The pope said the entire church must focus on efforts to "safeguard the fundamental values of marriage and the family, which are threatened by the current phenomenon of secularization, which prevents the social conscience from discovering the identity and mission of the institution of the family."

The family must be defended from "the pressure of unjust laws" that do not recognize the rights and needs of the family and "disfigure it with false understandings of marriage and the family that do not respect the original plan of God," he said.

END

mmarcman22
11-27-2007, 09:08 AM
Archbishop: Catholics serve nation best by living faith authentically

By Beth Griffin
Catholic News Service

NEW YORK (CNS) -- Catholics serve their country best in the long run "by remembering that we're citizens of heaven first," Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver said Oct. 26 at the 15th annual meeting of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists.

"It's time for all of us who claim to be 'Catholic' to recover our Catholic identity as disciples of Jesus Christ and missionaries of his church," he said.

The social scientists convened at St. John's University School of Law in Queens Oct. 26-27.

"We're better Americans by being more truly Catholic (because) unless we live our Catholic faith authentically, with our whole heart and our whole strength," the archbishop said, "we have nothing worthwhile to bring to the public debates that will determine the course of our nation."

Archbishop Chaput said that the so-called "post-Christian" time in which we live and where Western nations have abandoned or greatly downplayed their Christian heritage "actually looks a lot like the pre-Christian moment."

"The signs of our times in the developed nations -- morally, intellectually, spiritually and even demographically -- are uncomfortably similar to the signs in the world at the time of the Incarnation," he said.

The challenges faced by American Catholics today, he said, are similar to those faced by the first Christians.

In Roman times, as now, the society was advanced in the sciences and arts, had a complex economy, a strong military and included many religions, practiced privately or through civic ceremony. Promiscuity, bisexuality, homosexuality and prostitution were common and accepted, he noted. Birth control and abortion were legal, widely practiced and justified by society's leading intellectuals, he said.

The early Christians successfully evangelized their culture throughout Western civilization in a relatively brief period of 400 years, Archbishop Chaput said. "If we can learn from that history, the more easily God will work through us to spark a new evangelization."

The keys to Christian success were both doctrine and action, he said. People's belief in the Gospel led to "a radical transformation. So radical they couldn't go on living like the people around them anymore," he said.

One of the areas in which early Christians rejected the culture around them was marriage and the family, said Archbishop Chaput.

"From the start, to be a Christian meant believing that sex and marriage were sacred," he said. "From the start, to be a Christian meant rejecting abortion, infanticide, birth control, divorce, homosexual activity and marital infidelity -- all those things widely practiced by their Roman neighbors."

Archbishop Chaput recounted that Christian reverence for the unborn "is no medieval development. It comes from the very beginnings of our faith."

"The early church had no debates over politicians and Communion. There wasn't any need," he said. "No persons who tolerated or promoted abortion would have dared to approach the eucharistic table, let alone dared to call themselves true Christians."

"The early Christians understood that they were the offspring of a new worldwide family of God," he said. "They saw the culture around them as a culture of death, a society that was slowly extinguishing itself."

Archbishop Chaput said, "Since we see similar signs in our own day, we need to find the courage those first Christians had in challenging their culture. We need to believe not only what they believed. We need to believe those things with the same deep fervor."

He said that believers must speak up "vigorously and without apologies" and be God's "witnesses on earth, not just in our private behavior, but in our public actions, including our social, economic and political choices."

Archbishop Chaput concluded, "If pagan Rome could be won for Jesus Christ, surely we can do the same in our own world. What it takes is the zeal and courage to live what we claim to believe."

END

voytechs
11-27-2007, 09:16 AM
I'm struggling writing a response to this. Can anybody help me out? He's an old high school buddy and he's Catholic. How can I answer the just war, abortion, and gay marriage things in the best way?

Here is a letter I sent to about 100 different catholic churches in my area this past weekend. I was forwarding an "Open Letter to Catholics" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. from Lew Rockwell website and added a little intro.


My dear fellow Catholic brothers and sisters,

I and many others feel very strongly that there is a good, decent Christian man running for president this election season, congressman and a retired OB/GYN doctor of 40 years, Ron Paul. He is unlike any other candidate running today and it should become apparent why this is so, when you read this letter. He is strongly pro-life, pro private schooling and pro constitution in general. He wants to limit the federal government regulation over all of us and our churches, and limit its power to what is specifically allowed by the constitution. This will result in maximum freedom to educate our children and practice our faith.

In addition to the letter below I would also like to provide a link to a statement of faith issued by Dr. Paul:
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

A video with general information about Dr. Paul:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wIivoqLbeeg

Official campaign website:
http://ronpaul2008.com

If you would like to know more about Dr. Paul, please feel free to email me back and I will be happy to provide you with more information.

Sincerely,
Mark
________________________________


An Open Letter to the Catholic Community on Behalf of Ron Paul


by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. <mailto:woods@mises.org> by Thomas E. Woods, J

Never in my life have I felt as strongly about a presidential candidate – or about any politician, for that matter – as I do about Dr. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas. I’ve gone from being someone so disgusted with politics that I can’t bear to read about it to being a political junkie, avidly following the activities and successes of this great man.

As an American historian, I am not aware of any congressman in American history whose voting record is so stellar, and so consistently in accord with the Constitution.

Beyond that, Ron Paul is not a panderer. He’ll speak to an interest group and tell them to their faces that he has opposed and will continue to oppose funding their pet projects. Lobbyists know they’re wasting their money if they try to wine and dine him. He recently spoke before the national convention of an organization aimed at protecting the interests of a particular ethnic group, and began by saying: "Somebody asked me whether I had a special speech for your group, and I said, no, it’s the same speech I give everywhere."

Already by 1981, Ron Paul had earned the highest rating ever given by the National Taxpayers Union, received the highest rating from the Council for a Competitive Economy, and won the Liberty Award from the American Economic Council for being "America’s outstanding defender of economic and personal freedom."

Dr. Paul, who entered Congress in 1976 and returned to his medical practice in 1984, picked up where he left off when he returned to Congress in the 1996 election. I do not expect to see his like again.

He is also a good and decent man, who really is what he appears to be when you hear him speak. As a physician at an inner-city hospital, Ron Paul provided medical care to anyone who needed it, regardless of ability to pay. He never accepted money from Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to provide free care instead. That’s what people in a free society are supposed to do: be responsible for themselves, and then lend their assistance to those who are vulnerable and alone.

Ron Paul is a candidate who doesn’t insult his listeners’ intelligence, who answers the questions he is asked, and who doesn’t simply say whatever his audience wants to hear. And unlike other major names in the race, Ron Paul doesn’t have to run away from his record, which reveals an unswerving commitment to peace, freedom, and prosperity that is second to none in all of American history.

Although I would have supported Ron Paul back before I converted to Catholicism, I think Catholics will like what they see when they examine his record. Over at Defend Life, Ron Paul comes out decisively on top <http://defendlife.blogspot.com/2007/11/evaluation-of-presidential-candidates.html> in a study of the candidates’ positions on the issues according to the guidelines recently established by the United States bishops. (If anything, I think this study understates Paul’s compatibility with Catholic teaching.)

On education and home schooling, Ron Paul is the clear winner. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter all voted for the execrable No Child Left Behind Act, and Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have both come out in favor of it. Ron Paul – as did the Republican Party itself not so long ago – opposes any federal role in education, which is the responsibility of parents and local communities.

In other words, Ron Paul believes in a little something called subsidiarity, which happens to be a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible, as opposed to the dehumanizing alternative whereby distant bureaucratic structures are routinely and unthinkingly entrusted with more and more responsibilities for human well-being.

On home schooling, Ron Paul has proposed legislation giving tax credits worth thousands of dollars to reimburse the educational expenses of home-schooling parents, as well as those of parents who send their children to other kinds of schools. What presidential candidate speaks like this?

Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family. By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets.

When it comes to abortion, Ron Paul – an obstetrician/gynecologist who has delivered over 4,000 babies – has been a consistent opponent of Roe v. Wade, which he rightly considers unconstitutional. But he has no interest in the failed strategy of the past 35 years whereby we sit and wait for a remedy in the form of good Supreme Court justices. His HR 300 would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. That would overturn Roe by a simple congressional majority.

Then we could see who is sincere on the issue, and who is just exploiting it for votes. Few in either party really want to see the abortion status quo overturned, since it means they can’t scare their supporters into sending them as much money anymore.

Upon the Pope’s death in 2005, Ron Paul paid tribute <http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul242.html> to John Paul’s consistent defense of life. On another occasion, he offered an additional tribute, of the sort few politicians would utter:

To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Speaking of John Paul II, it is important to remember that that pope was a strong opponent of the U.S. government’s attack on Iraq, sending his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to Washington shortly before the commencement of hostilities in order to insist to the president that such a war would be unjust. The Pope’s first comments after the war broke out were these: "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society."

Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked if a U.S. government attack on Iraq would be just. "Certainly not," came the reply. He predicted that "the damage would be greater than the values one wishes to save."

After the war ended, Ratzinger said: "It was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction…. It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world." "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," he elsewhere observed. "To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’"

Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in this obviously avoidable war, a war that was based on falsehoods that we would have laughed at if they’d been uttered by Leonid Brezhnev. But since they came from the White House we cheer as for a football team, and duck the appalling material and moral consequences. A country that (by regional standards) once had an excellent health care system, opportunities for women, liberal gun and alcohol laws, and – yes – lots of immigrants, was turned into a disease-ridden basket case, filled with dead, wounded, and malnourished children, for no good reason.

That’s just wrong, and it isn’t "liberal" to say so.

Likewise, Ratzinger/Benedict is not a "liberal" for opposing the war. He is a moral conservative, but a man whose conservatism is more mature than the sloganeering jingoism of so much of what passes for conservatism in today’s America. Ron Paul is an equally sober and serious statesman, and for that reason was one of very few Republicans with the courage and the foresight to oppose this economic and moral fiasco from the very start.

It is especially satisfying to learn that in the second quarter of 2007, Ron Paul received more donations from active duty and retired military personnel than any other Republican candidate. By the third quarter, he was receiving more than any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. Want to support the troops? Then support Ron Paul.

My main argument to you, though, is not a specifically Catholic one. It’s one that should resonate with anybody who values honesty, integrity, and decency. Ron Paul is a good man who believes in justice and the Constitution, and who cannot be bought. His ten terms in Congress have proven that again and again.

And that is why the media fears him. Unlike the rest of them, Ron Paul is unowned.

Now every establishment hack out there wants you to vote for one of the business-as-usual candidates. Are you really so happy with the establishment that its endorsement or cajoling means anything to you? If anything, it should make us all the more interested in Ron Paul – the one candidate the establishment fears, since they know their game is up if he should win.

Far from being in the unhappy position of a candidate whose children won’t even speak to him, Ron Paul is fortunate to have family members all over the campaign trail on his behalf. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years, and has been blessed with five children and eighteen grandchildren. There are some family values.

Just think: for once, you don’t have to choose the lesser among evils. You can finally vote for someone. You can not only be happy, but actually honored, to cast your vote for Ron Paul.

But don’t just vote for him. Find out about him, and get out there and spread the word.

November 21, 2007

terryhamel
11-27-2007, 09:32 AM
From a DailyPaul.com thread (http://dailypaul.com/node/9053):

OK , as of now there are both dvds from ronpauldvd.com and the Christian specific RP dvd From peaceplan @ronpaulforums available for direct download here (http://digitaldiesel.net/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=0)

The Ron Paul Christian DVD (http://digitaldiesel.net/index.php?PHPSESSID=a8282f07ef492b5354e8bd79b5a460 ca&action=tpmod;dl=cat36)

jmdrake
11-28-2007, 09:19 AM
What denomination are you trying to convert your catholic friend to? JUST KIDDING! :D

I think this is another case where it is best to look at people as individuals instead of members of collective groups. Certainly Ron Paul's position on abortion shouldn't turn off Catholics. It's more Catholic than Rudy Giuliani (who is Catholic himself). Neither he nor Romney are backing an abortion amendment. On the war some Catholics are for it, some are against. Certainly there is no religious mandate for going to war with Iraq. Mitt Romney supports an anti gay marriage amendment. Ron Paul seeks to leave that up to the states. But as governor Romney pushed through a civil unions bill. Sure it was in response to a state supreme court ruling allowing gay marriage outright. Sure it was a "pragmatic" approach. But why would anything think he would jump from being "pragmatic" to "super anti gay champion" just be becoming elected president? He clearly knows such an amendment won't pass and he'll back away from it if he gets the nomination. As far as "just war" theory, I'd ask your friend why he likes Romney's stance on "just war". Either he doesn't understand his stance or she doesn't understand this war.

Regards,

John M. Drake

scipio337
11-28-2007, 01:32 PM
I'm struggling writing a response to this. Can anybody help me out? He's an old high school buddy and he's Catholic. How can I answer the just war, abortion, and gay marriage things in the best way?Because Romney is disengenuous with his "position" on abortion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

and the RCC has never called either war a "Just War".

As a Catholic, I know Romney doesn't pass the smell test, especially regarding those social issues.

The only legitimate beef he would have against Paul would be wanting to leave the gay marriage issue to the states, but that would be something that shows more "loving the sinner, and hating the sin" than promoting a lifestyle your friend doens't approve of.

Ron Paul in 2008
11-28-2007, 02:27 PM
In regards to Romney, since politics is social morality, and since social morality is society's seeking of the good, then the most important issues in American politics should be moral issues.

Is following the constitution and enforcing our immigration laws also not a moral issue?



That being the case, Romney seems to be the best all-around candidate for issues such as abortion, just-war, same-sex marriages, and so on. Unfortunately I don't think he will get the nomination, which will most likely go to Giuliani.

Top military commanders have said that we will be battling the insurgency for decades and troops will need to stay indefinitely. Congress is printing money non-stop to fund it and there is no guarantee that once we leave the Muslims wont democratically elect an extremist. Should we base American lives and our economy on such an uncertainty?

Romney wants to expand mass immigration and this will include Muslims. Same Sex marriage and abortion will be banned in 48-50 states if left to the states. Ron Paul strategy is the only realistic one and will get immediate results and end the endless and annoying pro choice, pro life debate.

RonPaulCatholic
01-17-2008, 05:53 PM
Ron Paul is really the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, whose platform, record and ideals are compatible with Catholic teaching.

Most Catholics I've spoken to about Ron Paul are fairly easy to get on board. The hardest ones are cafeteria Catholics and liberal Catholics (ie, don't follow or are ignorant of the church's teachings).

brandon07
01-17-2008, 10:43 PM
I would mail your friend these books:

"Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church"
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=73

"Freedom and Capitalism"
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=162

"Papal Power: Its Origins and Development"
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=123

"The Bible"
http://www.amazon.com/New-American-Standard-Bible/dp/1581351003/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200631386&sr=8-4

RonPaulCatholic
01-18-2008, 03:11 PM
I have to say every so often I see some major anti-Catholic, anti-papist talk on the part of Ron Paul supporters... To be honest, I have to really look past it in order to not have my view of Ron Paul's ideals get overtly colored.

Its quite the turn off if you're going to actually try and attract Catholic voters.

RJB
01-18-2008, 03:32 PM
I have to say every so often I see some major anti-Catholic, anti-papist talk on the part of Ron Paul supporters... To be honest, I have to really look past it in order to not have my view of Ron Paul's ideals get overtly colored.

Its quite the turn off if you're going to actually try and attract Catholic voters.

There is a small group of trolls here who attack Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Atheists, evangelicals etc as anti-american etc. Which is ridiculous because this forum has a huge population of all these groups and more.

IMO I don't care what group you're in, if you're for RP and the constitution you're in my group. Although I'm a Catholic, I make a point to defend any group of RP supporters being attacked here. Personally I think Jews and Mormons seem to get attacked by the few trolls more than Catholics. Which is a shame that there would be any in fighting among us revolutionaries when our ultimate goal of returning to a constitutional government is the same.

Abegweit
01-18-2008, 03:37 PM
I'm struggling writing a response to this. Can anybody help me out? He's an old high school buddy and he's Catholic. How can I answer the just war, abortion, and gay marriage things in the best way?

Does this help?



America: Ron Paul and Catholic Social Teaching (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018705.html#more)

Edit: Also, there is a lot of information here: http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/

misericordia
01-18-2008, 04:47 PM
Fatima and Betania. Any serious Catholic who knows even a smidgen of these Vatican Approved apparitions, knows that Ron Paul subscribes to their view of the possible or likely future of mankind unless we change.

I think you should have a specific thread for Catholics, outlining what the mother of God has said about the future, and what Ron Paul subscribes to. Even at the risk of alienating some of the more vociferous anti-catholics, our vote has to be pretty big.

George Orwell said it best in a sound bite we can all get, quick....on what is his vision of the future of mankind he said, "A boot, stamping on a human face, forever."

Fatima, "Russia will spread her errors to the world." (This takes a bit of a deeper look, because it is promulgated under the guise of intuitions and ideologies backed and germinated in the west.)

Recommend they watch Aaron Russo, and read Betania's vision on line.

This is much more than politics, this is the future of all of us.

Corydoras
01-19-2008, 12:18 AM
Pass along these links:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rm-1CH8nZWw
http://reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com/2007/11/faithful-citizenship-by-kent-c-bois.html
http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/06/welcome-to-catholics-for-ron-paul.html

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with a consistent life ethic: Pro-choice, against the death penalty, and in favor of the Just War Theory as elucidated by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas of Aquin.

ddoggphx
01-22-2008, 04:47 AM
Um, I'm pretty sure that the Catholic Church does not condone the Iraq war as a "just war."

And honestly I can't begin to help you here, since your friend sounds like someone who is trying to use philosophy like a kid who stumbles across his dad's gun. He'll be lucky if his foot is the only thing he shoots off with the non sequitur statements he's making.

Pope John Paul II was very outspoken against the war in Iraq. VERY outspoken.

Google it and send him links and how that backs up RP's position.

Then tell him how RP is pro-life.


I'm catholic, and I'm dismayed as to how any Catholics are NOT RP fans.

ddoggphx
01-22-2008, 04:54 AM
I would mail your friend these books:

"Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church"
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=73

"Freedom and Capitalism"
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=162

"Papal Power: Its Origins and Development"
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=123

"The Bible"
http://www.amazon.com/New-American-Standard-Bible/dp/1581351003/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200631386&sr=8-4



Gee, and I'd say you are an asshole. Way to win people over.

Keep your religious hatred/interventionist issues to yourself. You are the antithesis to freedom of religion and constitutional liberties.

Live and let live.

L.A.mama
02-01-2008, 07:31 AM
The Catholic organization is in essence quite contrary to the libertarian and classic, Republican views of freedom espoused by Dr. Ron Paul as Roman Catholicism in both origin and design, is intended to marry "religion" and state.

Perhaps the best way to win Catholics over to the Ron Paul r3VOLution would be to show them the truth about the broad path their institution intends to take them down along with the rest of the world -just the opposite of the simplicity in Christ as well as the direction Ron Paul is trying to lead Americans in.

Roman Catholics must ask themselves, "Why is the pope calling for a New World Order which would of necessity require the absolution of United States sovereignty?"

http://americanawakening.blogspot.com/2005/12/pope-calls-for-new-world-order-christ.html

http://www.newhopeinthelord.com/readingcornerpages/catholicbible.htm

http://www.gloriouschurch.com/html/Monarchial-Bishop-vs-Biblical-Eldership.asp

LEK
02-04-2008, 03:50 PM
What your friend has said is correct - many of these issues are moral issues. That sounds like Ron Paul. That's why he wants the States to decide such things as abortion, marriage, etc. When you have the Federal Government decide these things (via representatives and judges) the moral factor is greatly diminished. These representatives have prostituted themselves to special intersts groups, lobbyists and whoever else has the biggest purse.

When the people are able to vote at the state level, Ron Paul has said, he believes the people will vote morally. At least there is a far better chance that the right choices will be made.

Please read this from Ron Paul about the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

Please read this by Ron Paul:

He spells out the Just War Theory in his speech to the House.

My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of “The Just War Theory.” This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six points are as follows:

War should be fought only in self defense;
War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.
The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr062906.htm