What are your thoughts re Hegelian dialectic?

[temporal1]

You're right, the mainstream liberal press is trying to spin it yet again to protect Biden's image I suppose.

Fact: Biden requested a meeting with the Pope and to attend a Papal Mass. Pope Francis said no.

Biden is an afterthought. Non consequential.
“The effort” is to silence Christianity, whether passively or aggressively. Yawn.

Hillary and obama did their bit.
Go along to get along.

[Josh]

The lying press is also trying to spin that the Vatican thinks the U.S. bishops should not withhold communion from pro abortion politicians.

[Ken]

The lying press is also trying to spin that the Vatican thinks the U.S. bishops should not withhold communion from pro abortion politicians.

Abortion and gay marriage are the two issues brought up by the Catholic Church. But both are constitutional rights in this country. Presidents take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution whether they agree with it or not. What these conservative Bishops are actually saying is that public service and Catholicism are incompatible. Or that one cannot be a good Catholic and take the Oath of Office. This isn't about Biden. To be morally consistent all Catholic politicians and justices (including the 6 on the Supreme Court) should either resign or officially announce that Catholicism does not influence their public duties, exactly the way that John F. Kennedy did in 1960 with his famous speech on Catholicism. https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/oth ... s-19600421

[Josh]

You can’t be a Catholic (or a Christian) in good standing and simultaneously promote homosexuality and abortion.

I suppose one could do so and be an Episcopalian.

[MaxPC]

You can’t be a Catholic (or a Christian) in good standing and simultaneously promote homosexuality and abortion.

Spot on, Josh.

I suppose one could do so and be an Episcopalian.

Or COB; or MCUSA; or Unitarian.

[MaxPC]

The lying press is also trying to spin that the Vatican thinks the U.S. bishops should not withhold communion from pro abortion politicians.

Abortion and gay marriage are the two issues brought up by the Catholic Church. But both are constitutional rights in this country. Presidents take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution whether they agree with it or not. What these conservative Bishops are actually saying is that public service and Catholicism are incompatible. Or that one cannot be a good Catholic and take the Oath of Office.

Actually this is a misinterpretation; that is akin to saying that a pacifist cannot be President or hold political office. They have and they can; just as Catholics have and do hold political offices while remaining faithful to their beliefs. Biden is being called to accountability regarding his fitness to receive Holy Communion.

To be morally consistent all Catholic politicians and justices (including the 6 on the Supreme Court) should either resign or officially announce that Catholicism does not influence their public duties, exactly the way that John F. Kennedy did in 1960 with his famous speech on Catholicism. https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/oth ... s-19600421

I'm sure you would like that Ken, as you have consistently preached the Democrat agenda that promotes these unBiblical abominations. Nevertheless the US Constitution protects the religious beliefs of office holders who choose to practice them faithfully. E.g. Ilhan Omar who periodically uses hate speech in support of her Islamic beliefs.

Further John Kennedy did not defy his Catholic faith by publicly supporting the abominations of homosexuality and abortion in his political life: that is a straw man you are using to try to win an argument. You just destroyed your own argument.

Ken, that said, this is a discussion in the General Theology thread about Hegelian dialectics being used within church circles. If you want to pursue your favorite topic of politics, take it to the Politics forum. Your political diatribes belong there not here in this thread.

[PetrChelcicky]

Ken's idea that presidents have to "uphold the constitution" implies an inexactitude which endangers democracy in general.
It is correct insofar members of the executive have to uphold legislation-as-it-is.
It is incorrect insofar members of the executive have some leeway in "interpreting" the legislation if it is not obvious.
It is perhaps incorrect when a member of the executive has reasonable doubts that the legislation will stand juridical scrutiny (i.e that it is compatible with more fundamental parts of the constitution).
And it is definitely incorrect w.r.t the more general activities of a politician and party member; even if they have a position within the executive they keep their right to promote a change of legislation. For example, a president may in his inaugurial speech tell that he does not agree to a particular law and wants to work for its abolishment.
With other words, there is no way to "secure" a law, even a beloved law, against opposition and democratic changes (besides simply abolishing democracy).

[Ken]

Ken's idea that presidents have to "uphold the constitution" implies an inexactitude which endangers democracy in general.
It is correct insofar members of the executive have to uphold legislation-as-it-is.
It is incorrect insofar members of the executive have some leeway in "interpreting" the legislation if it is not obvious.
It is perhaps incorrect when a member of the executive has reasonable doubts that the legislation will stand juridical scrutiny (i.e that it is compatible with more fundamental parts of the constitution).
And it is definitely incorrect w.r.t the more general activities of a politician and party member; even if they have a position within the executive they keep their right to promote a change of legislation. For example, a president may in his inaugurial speech tell that he does not agree to a particular law and wants to work for its abolishment.
With other words, there is no way to "secure" a law, even a beloved law, against opposition and democratic changes (besides simply abolishing democracy).

In our system of government, the Constitution is primarily interpreted by the Supreme Court.

If you have a president who refuses to comply with Supreme Court decisions on any issue (religious rights, first amendment rights, gun rights, etc. etc.) then you no longer have a constitutional democracy. You have a dictatorship and you have essentially overthrown our system of balance of powers and three branches of government.

Set abortion aside and use another example.

If the President chose to jail his opponents in violation of the 6th and 14th Amendments and ignored Supreme Court rulings to the contrary then we would have a dictatorship.

If the President chose to order the military or FBI to seize all weapons in a particular city or state in violation of the 2nd Amendment and ignored Supreme Court rulings to the contrary then we would have a dictatorship.

And if the President chose to wield the powers of the federal government to outlaw legal abortion or gay marriage in defiance of Supreme Court rulings to the contrary then we also have a dictatorship.

In all three cases he would be violating his oath of office and should be subject to impeachment and removal.

[MaxPC]

Reminder: this is not the Politics forum. This topic is focused upon Hegelian dialectics being used in church groups.

An aside re the argumentation tactic of Hd: it was used in the current US Bishop’s meeting by those who tried to suppress the debate of the topic of Eucharistic Coherence (and those who support unBiblical agendas.) That attempt failed. Once the 3 hour debate was finished, a large majority of the Bishops approved of drafting a definitive document the emphasizes Eucharistic Coherence and causes for excommunication/exclusion. The opportunity for discussion and debate clarified the priorities of core doctrine.

[Bootstrap]

You can’t be a Catholic (or a Christian) in good standing and simultaneously promote homosexuality and abortion.

Oh really?

Google LGBT friendly Catholic or DignityUSA. Look at listings like this:

https://www.newwaysministry.org/resources/parishes

I don't know any LGBT friendly Southern Baptist Churches. I don't know any openly gay Southern Baptists. I think that would be hard to pull off.

But I do know openly gay Catholics. The posturing in this thread is at odds with reality.