I've always understood holier than thou to mean one who was being self righteous. I often struggle with this, simply because I believe the actions I take in my life are composed towards the goal I see as coming into union with God through his Son. It's called pride. First sin, one I need to work more on curbing. At the same time, I don't think its holier than thou to judge or denounce an action. That is a slippery slope towards moral relatavism. And for the following, are you asking me if I would vote for them, or if they should not recieve the Eucharist? I take it these individuals are all Catholic? The Pope's position on the war in Iraq is admirable and I don't neccessarily disagree with him. However, it is not a matter of ex cathedra beliefs, and I don't know if abortion is at this point is either; simply because the question has yet to come up before an ecumenical council. The Catholic church is not oppossed to war if it is just. Whether this war is just is not an easy question. I could provide you with some wonderful articles by George Weigel and Robert George if you'd like. They really are bright minds on the matter. That's why I agree with Cardinal McCarick's take, that this is an issue that needs careful deliberation. Are politicians who are more responsible and in a place of higher esteem obliged to uphold the teachings of the church on matters such as this? That said, it seems sufficient to say they could recieve the Eucharist. Once again, the church is not per se oppossed to the death penalty; just that it should be used in rare cases, and in America, little or never. You have to throw the element of justice in to the matter as well; i.e. what have the unborn done to deserve death, etc. etc. I argue that people like Scalia need to change their minds on this and go with what the church teaches, although, it certainly hasn't been defined ex cathedra. I would argue they do more research before they make their decision on if they were in union with Christ and the sacrament of holy communion. I would argue, why can't this person favor the teaching of other methods like Natural Family Planning, or how it is also called, the rythmn method. Or even a greater understanding of what sex and love means. That really doesn't have to be even a religious issue. I would also argue that his beliefs don't make logical sense. I would argue that this person should restrain from taking the Eucharist, but not be forced to. Well if he's a practicing homosexual he's already committed mortal sin so he shouldn't recieve the Eucharist. Is he Catholic? I mean, catholic means universal, so to an extent I think we're all catholic. Is he following church teaching? I'd say no. Sorry to cahnge it to if the person should recieve communion or not, but it seems like thats what should be done after my explanation of why I called Kerry "Catholic." MacB, still waiting for a response.
To what? To Chesterton? I've read him before...but I don't understand what point you feel he makes for you. He was brilliant, but also reactionary, staunchly conservative ( even for the time) and admitedly inflenced by his Catholicism. I love his style, and he's a good read, but he's not known as the "Prince of Paradox" for nothing. I honestly thought that was a preface, and you were getting back to me, as you said. Before I respond, and without getting into the problem citing a single, notoriously biased source as an historical argument, I'd like you to tell me what point you feel Chesterton made for your position.
So you're discrediting Chesterton's comments on the Crusades? I'm sorry, biased or not, there's a lot of things you can't argue with him on in there that should change your outlook on the crusades from it was just all Catholics fault. It was a preface to the second post and which I don't know if you read or not but the point was to tell you, you might not be as right as you think you are on the crusades in painting the picture as one sided as you do. The second post doesn't have much to do with the crusades though...so I'm guessing you didn't read it yet...
Possibly you didn't read my post: I've read Chesterton before, quite a bit, and didn't bother to re-read this. It won't change my outlook, because it's already incorporated, but as with most of history, you can only really arrive at a conclusion by accumulation, not one interpretation. Didn't read your second one, assumed it was a continuation. Will check it out.
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is ruled by the celestial sign of the Sun. It is "the mother of all sins... the thin line between righteousness and self-righteousness." Indeed -- line crossed.
??? Despite the sign of the Sun saying its wrong, I was already saying in the confines of the Catholic Church what I was doing was wrong, and apologized..
