Thanks bro’. 
Yes. He has agreed that the Vatican could have done something about something that has something to do with something you think the Vatican should have done.
What harm comes from homosexual unions?
Not really. The political environment from 2000-2006 is the perfect example. The GOP had 6 years of an unfettered majority, yet did nothing to curtail abortion rights. Voting strictly for a pro-life candidate had zero effect. So why did the catholic church insist upon voting a pro-life only ticket in 2002 when there was absolutely no danger of abortion being acted upon?
And let me add: I originally said that the Pope does not interfere in the administrative affairs of another Diocese. And I was correct. He can remove a bishop in extreme situations, but that is not the same as directing their internal administrtative activities.
I am curious: Planned Parenthood - aside from murdering millions of children by abortion - has been exposed for helping those who traffic in kiddie sex to get those kids abortions and contraception. Are you just as angry at that them as you are at the Pope? Or do you reserve your anger for the Church… …for reasons I can only speculate about.
Caesar doesn’t “steal” your money. You are required to render it unto him. I believe this was addressed a long, long time ago.
I said I would answer questiuons about Catholicism. I am not going to debate what is or is not a sin Biblically. I think we all know where the Church stands on this subject so there really is no question to answer. However, you can read the “offical” Catechism section on this subject:
**Chastity and homosexuality **
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If you’re referring to the same case I’m thinking of, no it hasn’t. Not even a little bit.
I thought this was an Ask the Catholic thread, not Ask the Liberals, or Ask the non-Catholics, or Let’s Debate Abortion thread.
I’m still curious on your stance on the Iraq War and other questions from my original questions on page 1.
Here’s another question:
I understand that in order for someone to become a saint, there has to be several documented, honest-to-God (heh) miracles. Do you believe these miracles actually occur? Are they the work of God acting through the proposed saint, or the work of the saint? If the work of God, do you believe this is an actual hand-of-God miracle where he reaches down from heaven and, say, cures someone?
Right. But unlike ancient Rome, in America the people tell the politicans what to do. And if people have other ideas on how to take care of the poor that do not involve a massive erxpansion of governement, then that is not a “sin”.
And BTW: I am sure that most Christians - not just Catholics - would agree with this. Your question is not a Catholic-specific question
Well he did encourage people to pay their taxes 
Eh, so is killing innocent Iraqis.
I appreciate your Catholicism – I’ve thought about swimming the Tiber myself many times. But I think you are conflating Catholoic orthodoxy with Republican party platform.
Agreed.
Please tell me that you are not comparing grown men who meet on the field of battle, to sucking a helpless child through a vacuum tube and throwing the pieces in a dumpster. - - PLEASE tell me you are not making that comparison!!!
This I don’t understand at all. If the people tell the government what to do in America, then it’s even less like theft than what Jesus told his followers to do.
And, are you speaking for Christians and Catholics now? I think [no cites at hand] that one of the most religious and Christian ethnic groups in this country are African Americans, and I’m pretty sure they support Obama’s policies, or at least something like 90-95% of them voted for Obama.
The “field of battle” involved bombing a lot of cities and the death of thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands, even) of non-combatants. War is not a game of Stratego. Innocents die no matter how hard we try. Just because the bomb isn’t atomic doesn’t mean it doesn’t kill children.
So - back to the question. Is it a sin to vote for a candidate that supports war?
Wait a minute, if the bread literally becomes the body of Christ, it shouldn’t bother her wheat allergy one bit. Maybe she is allergic to Christ?
Thats a fair point. But I am sure that Democrat and Republican alike would stipulate that presidents & congresses often exceed their mandates.
I have always been dumbfounded by that, I must admit.
Blacks seem to vote Democrat instinctually, and I know not why (although I have heard various theories). However, in the information age, this is changing. More non-white Republicans were elected in this last election than in previous elections.
Does Jesus love them less? And for the record, a lot of people who died in Iraq (and Afghanistan) were neither grown men nor soldiers.
Look, if you’re Catholic, I’m gonna assume you subscribe to the doctrin of Original Sin. In which case those babies were no more innocent than enemy soldiers (or friendly soldiers) or death row inmates. Or for that matter, the people all over the world who die due to lack of food or medicine. I vote for the politicians who do what they can to improve and protect as many lives as they can, including but not limited to the unborn.
Well, your question could not have come at a better time. I just found a Q & A from the “Catholic Answers LIVE” radio show, and a brief section of it was uploaded into Youtube, and it answers this very question. Give it a try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8ZFDY0YLw
A friendly reminder to terryobrien that some of us can’t access YouTube during the times we are most active on the Dope. A little bit of text transcript - even a few key sentences - goes a long way.
War is an ugly business. No one can deny that. But you cannot vote for a politician who you KNOW will support the evil of abortion just because you THINK MAYBE the other guy may or may not start a war.
And you cannot justify murdering babies because of the doctrine of “original sin”. Come on man, you’re way out there on that one.