The Acton Institute: Bravo

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Originally Posted by 30miller

1. Bill Gates accomplishments are visible and palpable - you can see them and touch them. Fr. Sirico's are not. The only evidence he presents is his bombastic speech. http://www.culturewars.com/

This quote is typical of leftists who are incapable of refuting the ideas of their political opponents.

It is un-Christian and intellectually vacuous.

Free markets are good for people.

Socialism hurts people and drives them away from God.

Can you name one socialist nation that has a thriving and growing Church?

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by 30miller

"This is detraction." That's from you in your last post. Now to try and make some meaningless and irrelevant distinction between "them" and "their actions" is disingenuous at best and detraction itself at worst. "This is detraction." - by these words you have convicted them , so let's not quibble over semantics. The action of "detraction" couldn't come into existence in a void out of nothing. The clear connection is that they committed the sin and are therefore judged and convicted (by you, that is).

No, for me to have judged them, I would have had to say, They have committed the sin of detraction and are going to Hell...

What I am saying is that in my opinion, what gthey are doing constitutes detraction. I think they are committing detraction on two grounds: 1. they are letting more people know than who need to know, and 2. they are inflating their information by a lot of stuff A. from the past which he apparently repented, and B. a lot of innuendo.

If we cannot judge other people's actions, then we cannot function in this world. But what we cannot do is to say that the particular persons people are in any particular state.

[St Francis]

I would also like to point out that the activity of which he is accused has no bearing whatsoever on his views as set forth at Acton.

[30miller]

THE QUOTES BELOW ARE FROM ST FRANCIS (the poster, not the real one) ABOVE:
"...No, for me to have judged them, I would have had to say, They have committed the sin of detraction and are going to Hell..." - that's semantics, just semantics. You can't call something beyond question and unequivocally "murder" without clearly calling the known perpetrator of the act a "murderer".

"...What I am saying is that in my opinion ... from the past which he apparently repented ..." - where do you get the idea that he repented from - the same place that posters on other threads claim that the "Lyin of the Senate" repented because he was awarded such a public tribute of a funeral by the Boston American Catholic Church????? His past is so horrific that he should lay it out there just as St. Augustine did and address his "repentence".

"...If we cannot judge other people's actions, then we cannot function in this world. But what we cannot do is to say that the particular persons people are in any particular state...". Your first sentence is exactly my point. Your second sentence misses it entirely. The only state that I am emphasizing that he is in is one that should not be presenting anything to the rest of us. If he would address his past, including your presumed repentence, in a thorough and believable way - then things would be different. He has not. He knows he has been turned into the Vatican with credible charges and undeniable facts and he doesn't respond in any way, let alone a believable way. Not good enough to be held up as someone to listen to. That's all.

[CHESTERTONRULES]

[quote=30miller;5737547 The only state that I am emphasizing that he is in is one that should not be presenting anything to the rest of us. If he would address his past, including your presumed repentence, in a thorough and believable way - then things would be different. He has not. He knows he has been turned into the Vatican with credible charges and undeniable facts and he doesn't respond in any way, let alone a believable way. Not good enough to be held up as someone to listen to. That's all.[/QUOTE]



His past is irrelevant to the validity of his opinions.

It is a distraction and seems intended to dismiss a point of view rather than address it.


What specific point do you have a problem with?

[30miller]

THE FOLLOWING QUOTES ARE FROM CHESTERTONRULES EARLIER POST:
"...This quote is typical of leftists who are incapable of refuting the ideas of their political opponents...It is un-Christian and intellectually vacuous...". Are you on the right thread? There is no "political" discussion going on on this thread and I have never knowingly addressed a "political opponent" here.

"....Free markets are good for people....". Once again, are you on the right thread? This statement of yours addresses nothing on the discussion here. (P.S. - not to burst your bubble or anything, but the Church is NOT an unequivocal supporter of free market capitalism. Robert Sirico may or may not be - and he sounds like he is - but our Church is definitely not).

"'.....Socialism hurts people and drives them away from God....". I agree 100%. "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." - Pius XI Quad. Anno (1931).

"....Can you name one socialist nation that has a thriving and growing Church?...". For the final time - are you on the right thread with this comment? Anyway, my answer to your seemingly misplaced question is "NO".

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Originally Posted by 30miller

THE FOLLOWING QUOTES ARE FROM CHESTERTONRULES EARLIER POST:
"...This quote is typical of leftists who are incapable of refuting the ideas of their political opponents...It is un-Christian and intellectually vacuous...". Are you on the right thread? There is no "political" discussion going on on this thread and I have never knowingly addressed a "political opponent" here.

"....Free markets are good for people....". Once again, are you on the right thread? This statement of yours addresses nothing on the discussion here. (P.S. - not to burst your bubble or anything, but the Church is NOT an unequivocal supporter of free market capitalism. Robert Sirico may or may not be - and he sounds like he is - but our Church is definitely not).

"'.....Socialism hurts people and drives them away from God....". I agree 100%. "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." - Pius XI Quad. Anno (1931).

"....Can you name one socialist nation that has a thriving and growing Church?...". For the final time - are you on the right thread with this comment? My answer to your seemingly misplaced question is "NO".

I am on the right thread.

I have no idea why you want to dredge up 30 year old sins as a means of discrediting a Catholic priest.

I assumed it was because you opposed his views.

I know of no legitimate reason, and you have yet to provide one.

[30miller]

Originally Posted by St Francis

I would also like to point out that the activity of which he is accused has no bearing whatsoever on his views as set forth at Acton.

Which are what, as you understand them?

[30miller]

Originally Posted by CHESTERTONRULES

I am on the right thread.

I have no idea why you want to dredge up 30 year old sins as a means of discrediting a Catholic priest.

I assumed it was because you opposed his views.

I know of no legitimate reason, and you have yet to provide one.

You obviously assumed incorrectly - Randy Engel and Culture Wars (and myself, I might add) are not only NOT leftist - we are the ANTITHESIS of leftism. The only thing I can imagine is that you are a kneejerk neocon defender of Sirico (for whatever reason, you don't say).
"...I assumed it was because you opposed his views...I know of no legitimate reason, and you have yet to provide one...". So you make incorrect assumptions about me because you assume I oppose his views - hmmm - makes me wonder if you are mainly defending the man or his (your) views? I'm not going to repost all my points - or Engels or Culture Wars either - as they are already presented on this thread. But I'll repeat the most obvious "legitimate reason" for you - he never should have been ordained in the first place as it was against the teaching of the Church to ordain homosexuals (as I have presented in earlier posts - read it there).

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Originally Posted by 30miller

You obviously assumed incorrectly - Randy Engel and Culture Wars (and myself, I might add) are not only NOT leftist - we are the ANTITHESIS of leftism. The only thing I can imagine is that you are a kneejerk neocon defender of Sirico (for whatever reason, you don't say).
"...I assumed it was because you opposed his views...I know of no legitimate reason, and you have yet to provide one...". So you make incorrect assumptions about me because you assume I oppose his views - hmmm - makes me wonder if you are mainly defending the man or his (your) views? I'm not going to repost all my points - or Engels or Culture Wars either - as they are already presented on this thread. But I'll repeat the most obvious "legitimate reason" for you - he never should have been ordained in the first place as it was against the teaching of the Church to ordain homosexuals (as I have presented in earlier posts - read it there).

You post another irrelevant evasion.

You bring up actions taken before he was even Catholic, let alone a priest, and you don't address his views.

I don't know what your game is, but you defintely can't explain or defend it.

[30miller]

Originally Posted by CHESTERTONRULES

You post another irrelevant evasion.

You bring up actions taken before he was even Catholic, let alone a priest, and you don't address his views.

I don't know what your game is, but you defintely can't explain or defend it.

Are you on the right thread? I told you it was against the teaching of the Church to ordain him and you call that "...another irrelevant evasion...". The teaching of the Church may be irrelevant to you, but it is not to me.
The teaching of the Church that I cited pertains SPECIFICALLY to what you call "...actions taken before he was ... a priest..." - i.e. the prohibition against ordaining homosexuals OBVIOUSLY was addressing those who were homosexual BEFORE THEY WERE PRIESTS - otherwise, why would there have been a prohibition to begin with?
I left out the "...before he was even Catholic..." part of your quote in my response above. Of course, the reason for that is that HE WAS BAPTIZED AND RAISED CATHOLIC and never made a request to give up the Faith (as far as I know, anyway) . Otherwise, he would have had to CONVERT (which never happened) to the Faith before his illicit ordination.
You're the one who explains absolutely nothing - you're just shooting in the dark here and that's why I thought you were on the wrong thread. Until you present something more than "shots in the dark" like you have thusfar, I won't respond to you further here.

[St Francis]

You need to use the quote feature or you will mess things up.

Originally Posted by 30miller

that's semantics, just semantics. You can't call something beyond question and unequivocally "murder" without clearly calling the known perpetrator of the act a "murderer".

No. I can say that the act of running over someone with a car is murder, the taking of an innocent human life; however, I may not be calling the driver a murderer. He may have done it accidentally; he may have done it by reckless driving or negligence; he may have been drunk. He would only be a murderer under certain circumstances.

where do you get the idea that he repented from - the same place that posters on other threads claim that the "Lyin of the Senate" repented because he was awarded such a public tribute of a funeral by the Boston American Catholic Church????? His past is so horrific that he should lay it out there just as St. Augustine did and address his "repentence".

I got the idea that he repented from the fact that he returned to the Catholic Church and became a priest. I am not saying that he should have been ordained, just that looking at his actions, he seems to have acted in a way which showed the turning away from sin.

I have not heard of any actions taken by T Kennedy which would have indicated that he repented. I do not think that he repented because after he was dead the people in Boston decided that he could have an elaborate Catholic funeral.

"...If we cannot judge other people's actions, then we cannot function in this world. But what we cannot do is to say that the particular persons people are in any particular state...". Your first sentence is exactly my point. Your second sentence misses it entirely. The only state that I am emphasizing that he is in is one that should not be presenting anything to the rest of us. If he would address his past, including your presumed repentence, in a thorough and believable way - then things would be different. He has not. He knows he has been turned into the Vatican with credible charges and undeniable facts and he doesn't respond in any way, let alone a believable way. Not good enough to be held up as someone to listen to. That's all.

I just think that returning to the Church and taking the vows a priest must take indicates that someone has turned away from a lifestyle such as the one he had lived in the past. Whatever else went on was between him and his confessor. Did his confessor do a bad job? Maybe, or maybe Fr Sirico was required to do something which we do not know about. I don't know, but apparently neither does anyone else involved.

The only thing remotely approaching credibility in the "charges" is what I pulled out earlier, and if I were the Vatican, I would want more elaboration on that point before doing anything.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by 30miller

Which are what, as you understand them?

WRT the Acton Institute, he speaks and writes about economics and religion.

[30miller]

Originally Posted by St Francis

No. I can say that the act of running over someone with a car is murder, the taking of an innocent human life; however, I may not be calling the driver a murderer. He may have done it accidentally; he may have done it by reckless driving or negligence; he may have been drunk. He would only be a murderer under certain circumstances.

I got the idea that he repented from the fact that he returned to the Catholic Church and became a priest. I am not saying that he should have been ordained, just that looking at his actions, he seems to have acted in a way which showed the turning away from sin.

I just think that returning to the Church and taking the vows a priest must take indicates that someone has turned away from a lifestyle such as the one he had lived in the past. Whatever else went on was between him and his confessor. Did his confessor do a bad job? Maybe, or maybe Fr Sirico was required to do something which we do not know about. I don't know, but apparently neither does anyone else involved.

Wrong! "Murder" is the unlawful PREMEDITATED killing of one human being by another - hence, you CAN'T just say "....I can say that the act of running over someone with a car is murder, the taking of an innocent human life; however, I may not be calling the driver a murderer. He may have done it accidentally; he may have done it by reckless driving or negligence; he may have been drunk. He would only be a murderer under certain circumstances...". And it would only be MURDER if there was a MURDERER. It could be an accidental HOMICIDE - but not an accidental MURDER. Same goes for detraction. There is no "accidental" detraction. If there is detraction - then there is a detractor - so since you have ruled "detraction" in what Engels and Culture Wars have put out, then you have smeared them as "detractors".

You say "...I got the idea that he repented from the fact that he returned to the Catholic Church and became a priest. I am not saying that he should have been ordained, just that looking at his actions, he seems to have acted in a way which showed the turning away from sin...". You need to educate yourself on many who have become priests. You can start with the facts that Alice von Hildebrand relates about Bella Dodd's sworn testimony that she personally put 1,200 men into seminaries who became priests who were Soviet agents whose mission it was to destroy the Catholic Church from within. Those are facts. Sirico's over-the-top public homosexuality and advocacy of same cannot simply be dismissed by your "feeling" that because he became a priest - that he therefore repented. The exact opposite is really the case - as documented in Michael Rose's book "Goodbye, Good Men" detailing the homosexuallity in the seminaries that led to the current child abuse crises in the Church. The seminaries were "target rich environments" for homosexuals.

You sound like the "Kennedyites" when you pose the question "... Did his confessor do a bad job? Maybe,...". Where in the world does that come from????? Why lay out the insinuation that maybe it was his confessor's fault? That's pure detraction to make such a suggestion with no evidence whatsoever and no legitimate reason for disclosure of same. Some of the Kennedyites tried to lay the responsibility for his militant pro-abortion position at the foot of some "Jesuit priests" who advised him.

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Originally Posted by 30miller

You're the one who explains absolutely nothing - you're just shooting in the dark here and that's why I thought you were on the wrong thread. Until you present something more than "shots in the dark" like you have thusfar, I won't respond to you further here.

You have not come close to making the case for why his views on free market economics are invalid.

You haven't even addressed them.

Instead, you have descended to the liberal tactic of ignoring his position while attacking an irrelevant personal failing from 30 years ago.

I don't blame you for not responding further. You don't have a response.