Steve bannon on 60 minutes

[annabenedetti]

But your hypothetical 500 years hence, makes a great presumption. It wasn't until the 1500s that the Church first published her infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals, in the Roman Catechism. And then another 400+ years later we have today's Catechism of the Catholic Church. There's no reason to think that the Church will follow the same schedule going forward. In fact, there's great reason to believe that we're all done with revisions forever. The Second Vatican council dealt with the world in the wake of the Protestant Reformation from a vantage point unavailable in the 1500s, and IMO that's enough time to meld together her unchanging teachings in matters of faith and morals, with a post-Christendom and yet still Christian world.

We witness for example her steadfast support for the separation between Church and state, and the human right of religious liberty, while still proclaiming that HE IS RISEN, and all that stems from that historical fact.

The Church's teaching didn't need any catechism at all to manifest magisterial infallibility. The infallibility came first, the definitions followed.

 

[Nihilo]

...someone who would like to be fully Catholic - but seemingly only on his terms.

My terms are simple. When my whole family is ready, we will all convert. One person converting alone is done all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't like the division.

I say embrace all of it

I do. On my terms, expressed above.

There isn't room for Americanism in a fully immersed Catholicism.

I disagree. I think that modern Catholicism is American. Cradle Catholics don't understand or appreciate their faith as well as Protestants understand theirs, but I think that when Catholics like Steves Bannon or Colbert speak out in American ways, that all Christians and the whole world can begin to grasp the freedom inherent in the Catholic faith, which is a faith of freedom, as shown in multiple places in the Christian Bible, as well as between and within the lines of the Catechism.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'm defending a faith I grew up in but don't currently practice from someone who would like to be fully Catholic - but seemingly only on his terms. I say embrace all of it or don't embrace any of it, which is why I can't in good faith say I do that myself at this time.

My terms are simple. When my whole family is ready, we will all convert. One person converting alone is done all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't like the division.
I do. On my terms, expressed above.

lain:

I disagree. I think that modern Catholicism is American.

And therein lies the problem. You see Catholicism as America-centric, with all that entails.

Cradle Catholics don't understand or appreciate their faith as well as Protestants understand theirs, but I think that when Catholics like Steves Bannon or Colbert speak out in American ways, that all Christians and the whole world can begin to grasp the freedom inherent in the Catholic faith, which is a faith of freedom, as shown in multiple places in the Christian Bible, as well as between and within the lines of the Catechism.

Again:

One cause of the bifurcation of Catholic viewpoints is the death of a collective Catholic mindset. Catholics no longer think like Catholics. They think like Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, socialists or secularists, but not as Catholics.

Again:

Pople Leo XII on Americanism:

"For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world."

A commentary on Testem Benevolentiae:

Better than Leo XIII or anyone else could have known at the time, the opinions condemned in the papal letter have turned out to be widely held among American Catholics today.
That is the case with the notion that each individual member of the Church can decide religious questions for himself or herself and that this remarkable ability comes directly to each one from the Holy Spirit. This opens the door to “cafeteria Catholicism” — a name given to the pick-and-choose selectivity regarding Church teaching on faith and morals now found among many Catholics.
All of which is simply to say it looks very much as if Pope Leo XIII wasn’t wrong to condemn Americanism — he was just ahead of his time.




NB: Since I believe strongly in the separation of Church and State, I'd be in hot water myself with Pope Leo XIII.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's right, and what was that?

The same thing He told them to do when an Israelite did it. If you're asking me if we are told to not punish immigrants equally with citizens, then no, He isn't telling you that. Read it again:

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Treat them as you would your fellow citizens, God says. Do you agree?

Do I agree that this is what the ancient Hebrews were taught? Of course. Does it pertain to our discussion of whether it's moral or immoral to deport people who are aren't Americans from America? Of course not.

So God just didn't realize that morality would be somewhat different in America? I see...

And what, again, did God tell the ancient Hebrews to do to those who practice sodomy and other gravely immoral sexual acts? Do you agree with it?

The same things as done to Hebrews living in Israel. Again, He made no distinction between Hebrews and foreigners as to how they were treated.

He said it was a sin between people in your favorite Hebrew scripture Leviticus.

Yep. It's a sin. And since Israel was ruled by God through His prophets, (at least, was supposed to be), that's how it was.

We don't live in a theocracy, so sin is not a legal issue. The Church teaches that while homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, homosexuals should be treated with respect and kindness and their rights should not be violated.

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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm (my emphasis)

You won't even agree with what your Church teaches about homosexuality.

 

[Nihilo]

lain:

Really. You find that to be unreasonable. Really. lain:

And therein lies the problem. You see Catholicism as America-centric, with all that entails.

That's your word. But let's see if we can tease out what you mean by it. As far I go, the Church teaches the things expressed in the Bill of Rights, starting with the First and Second Amendments, as interpreted by the SCOTUS. As with the Reformation, the Church's response to America is in some ways, "Oh, yes, we also believe those things .. we should let people know that instead of keeping it locked up in the Apostolic oral traditions," which is fine by me. Sometimes even the best of us need a kick in the pants to get us up off our duffs.

Again:

One cause of the bifurcation of Catholic viewpoints is the death of a collective Catholic mindset. Catholics no longer think like Catholics. They think like Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, socialists or secularists, but not as Catholics.

Again:

Pople Leo XII on Americanism:

"For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world."

A commentary on Testem Benevolentiae:

Better than Leo XIII or anyone else could have known at the time, the opinions condemned in the papal letter have turned out to be widely held among American Catholics today.
That is the case with the notion that each individual member of the Church can decide religious questions for himself or herself and that this remarkable ability comes directly to each one from the Holy Spirit. This opens the door to “cafeteria Catholicism” — a name given to the pick-and-choose selectivity regarding Church teaching on faith and morals now found among many Catholics.
All of which is simply to say it looks very much as if Pope Leo XIII wasn’t wrong to condemn Americanism — he was just ahead of his time.

Show where I pick and choose selectively regarding Church teaching on faith and morals. Because I don't, as I've repeatedly said ITT. Show where I evince any of these charges, in fact. Show where this applies to me.

NB: Since I believe strongly in the separation of Church and State, I'd be in hot water myself with Pope Leo XIII.

The Church also believes strongly in this.

 

[Nihilo]

The same thing He told them to do when an Israelite did it. If you're asking me if we are told to not punish immigrants equally with citizens, then no, He isn't telling you that. Read it again:

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Treat them as you would your fellow citizens, God says. Do you agree?



So God just didn't realize that morality would be somewhat different in America? I see...

lain: You continue to argue as if you're a Protestant, with a Protestant. You can't win this, arguing from Sacred Scripture like you're trying to do. I was reared in the Protestant tradition, and I ingested the scriptures in a way that only Protestants do---not that Catholics can't, it's just that, they typically don't, and you're typical on this point.

The same things as done to Hebrews living in Israel. Again, He made no distinction between Hebrews and foreigners as to how they were treated.



Yep. It's a sin.

Not just "a sin," Barbarian; it was a capital offense, and God told them to act accordingly. This is what your Leviticus tells us to do, if we're to abide by its teachings in the same way that you're trying to teach us. Don't you recognize this? Are you sure you're going to want to double- and triple-down on this position that you've chosen, you Catholic you?

And since Israel was ruled by God through His prophets, (at least, was supposed to be), that's how it was.

We don't live in a theocracy, so sin is not a legal issue.

Of course it is. Most grave sins and many lighter sins are also against the law.

The Church teaches that while homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, homosexuals should be treated with respect and kindness and their rights should not be violated.

With which I completely agree.

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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm (my emphasis)

You won't even agree with what your Church teaches about homosexuality.

This is the Church teaching here, and I agree with every drop of every word therein, contrary to what you're somehow perceiving.

 

[annabenedetti]

Really. You find that to be unreasonable. Really. lain:

I find it telling. Really.

That's your word. But let's see if we can tease out what you mean by it. As far I go, the Church teaches the things expressed in the Bill of Rights, starting with the First and Second Amendments, as interpreted by the SCOTUS. As with the Reformation, the Church's response to America is in some ways, "Oh, yes, we also believe those things .. we should let people know that instead of keeping it locked up in the Apostolic oral traditions," which is fine by me. Sometimes even the best of us need a kick in the pants to get us up off our duffs.

You have things reversed. You should be seeing where civil law agrees with the Church, not fitting the Church to civil law.

Show where I pick and choose selectively regarding Church teaching on faith and morals. Because I don't, as I've repeatedly said ITT. Show where I evince any of these charges, in fact. Show where this applies to me.

In your complete dismissal of Church social teaching, for which I've given you one of many possible CCC citations. For which Barbarian has given you scriptural texts. You ignore them, because you're in line with conservative MAGA mantras.

The Church also believes strongly in this. [Separation of Church and State]

Actually history will show otherwise. Here's a link to a traditionalist site, but it's useful reading to see another side of how the Church historically viewed the separation of Church and State.

Separation between Church and State:​

What is the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?​

I've given you quite a few links in these last pages. I doubt you've read any of them in their entirety, because none of them say what you want to hear- yet all of them source Church documents and the magisterium. You can be a Cafeteria Catholic if you so choose, you can fit the Church to the State if you so choose.

Remember it's God then country, but if you choose country first, you might have to acknowledge that the Protestants were right to fear the influx of Catholic immigrants. At least back then, it was quite possible to imagine that their loyalty was greater to the pope than to their adopted country, which led to these kinds of political cartoons:

 

[The Barbarian]

lain: You continue to argue as if you're a Protestant, with a Protestant.

Most Protestants are more Catholic than you are.

You can't win this, arguing from Sacred Scripture like you're trying to do.

It might not matter to you. But it's God's word. So we'll just have to disagree on that.

I was reared in the Protestant tradition, and I ingested the scriptures in a way that only Protestants do---not that Catholics can't, it's just that, they typically don't, and you're typical on this point.

You don't like what He said in Leviticus, and so you moved the goal posts from the way we are told to treat foreigners, to homosexuality. That's more than a little Protestant. You know there's more to being a Catholic than going to mass each Sunday. You should know that, anyway.

Not just "a sin," Barbarian; it was a capital offense, and God told them to act accordingly.

And so, the Church, by saying we should treat homosexuals with respect and compassion,and avoid mistreating them, is acting contrary to God's word? How so?

This is what your Leviticus tells us to do, if we're to abide by its teachings in the same way that you're trying to teach us.

You just don't like what the Church teaches, so you're asking to use Leviticus as a legal code. That's no longer applicable. The admonition to treat strangers well is just that. Notice there's no penalty for not doing it.

Well, not legally. Sodom payed the price for their intended mistreatment of strangers.

Barbarian observes:
We don't live in a theocracy, so sin is not a legal issue.

Of course it is.

Nope. It is not the function of our law to make us good.

Most grave sins and many lighter sins are also against the law.

Those that harm others are prohibited, but not because they are sins. The fact remains, as the Bishops said, is that we are to treat strangers in our land respect as we would our fellow citizens. You disagree with this as you disagree with treating homosexuals with respect.

If you don't like what the Church teaches, why be in it?

 

[User Name]

"In an interview with the Washington Examiner, former Deputy Adviser to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka said that Trump wanted to terminate the deal before the previous 90-day certification, but left it intact because his national security advisers had not presented him with an “adequate path” to withdrawal. Gorka and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon then departed from the White House before they could present the president with a plan of action..." -- http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...olton-gorka-bannon-urged-trump-end-iran-deal/

Gorka and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon then departed from the White House before they could present the president with a plan of action? I wonder why? Because they were fired, that's why.

 

[User Name]

Just spotted this on Breitbart:

"In an interview with the Washington Examiner, former Deputy Adviser to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka said that Trump wanted to terminate the deal before the previous 90-day certification, but left it intact because his national security advisers had not presented him with an “adequate path” to withdrawal. Gorka and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon then departed from the White House before they could present the president with a plan of action..." -- http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...olton-gorka-bannon-urged-trump-end-iran-deal/

Gorka and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon then departed from the White House before they could present the president with a plan of action? I wonder why? Because they were fired, that's why.

 

[annabenedetti]

Reading the comments section at Breitbart can be an ordeal, but it's a fascinating look at the alt-right mindset.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Reading the comments section at Breitbart can be an ordeal, but it's a fascinating look at the alt-right mindset.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.

 

[User Name]

Reading the comments section at Breitbart can be an ordeal, but it's a fascinating look at the alt-right mindset.

Here are a few choice comments:

"Trump kicked out the only honest, pro-American voices in his whole cabinet....he is going down with the swamp now!"

"Yeah it's Idiotic. It makes Bannon and Gorka look bad."

"Trumps staff is now nothing but Obamabots!!!"

"Trump chose globalists over Americans. We should have seen this coming."

"Why is Breitbart putting Bolton's name in the same sentence with Gorka and Bannon? Bolton is a warmonger NeoCon. He helped give us the Iraq debacle"

 

[annabenedetti]

Here are a few choice comments:

"Trump kicked out the only honest, pro-American voices in his whole cabinet....he is going down with the swamp now!"

"Yeah it's Idiotic. It makes Bannon and Gorka look bad."

"Trumps staff is now nothing but Obamabots!!!"

"Trump chose globalists over Americans. We should have seen this coming."

"Why is Breitbart putting Bolton's name in the same sentence with Gorka and Bannon? Bolton is a warmonger NeoCon. He helped give us the Iraq debacle"

I saw some of those. Trying clicking the top link from "best" to "oldest" or "newest" to get a different comment set. The default is "best" which hides some of the really oddball ones like:

"What this country needs right now is WAR with Iran. That's what we all elected Trump for. We want MORE WARS."

And I looking at that poster's posting history, I don't think he was being sarcastic.

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of infighting going on, which is also very interesting. And illuminating (but not in a positive way).

 

[User Name]

https://youtu.be/7qDY2pgJMYk

The video has been copyright-claimed by CBS. It is currently available here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-breitbart-steve-bannon-declares-war-on-the-gop/

 

[Nihilo]

The video has been copyright-claimed by CBS.

It was sideways! lain: Ah well.

I like to learn about animal brains. Which is more-or-less just animal behavior. They all, the animals, always maximize their mental powers, and that's why we can examine them so easily. We've no concern that the animals are actually smarter than us, and are merely putting on a show, because they know they're being watched.

Did you know why cameramen are able to capture footage of wild animals in the dead of night with spotlights shining upon them as bright as the sun? Because they're literally too stupid to think, "If that's a bright light, and it's shining into my eyes, then that means .. that others can see me." They never think that. They at most think, "Wow, look at the bright light. That's surprising." The implication is that their subconscious thought is, and remains, "It's night time," and they behave accordingly. At night time, they don't have to worry about sneaking around as much as when it's day time.

Animals only know, "I'm being watched," when they're prey, being hunted. Lions don't care if they're being watched. "I'm being watched" is a prey animal. What happened in the Garden? They knew they were naked.

"I'm being watched!" The animal staring into the bright light in the middle of the night, doesn't think it's being watched. Prey animals only think, "I'm being watched," when they're smart enough to recognize that they're being watched.

This should go without saying, but because they're so stupid, it's trivial that, and to say, that when they don't act like they're being watched, that's not convincing proof by itself, that they're actually not being watched; and it's possible that this is a false negative for their brains' differential equation governing flight-or-fight/adrenaline, because it's beyond their brain's capacity to discern, and that in fact, even if they act like they are not being watched, it remains very possible that they are in fact being watched, even though they're acting like they're under the cover of night.

That tree was the tree of knowledge.

What does this mean?

I also read this article, and thought of Mr. Bannon, and President Trump, and Charlie Rose, all different types of narcissists. President Trump is the best kind of narcissist IMO. Narcissists can only be matched by our laws, when they are just, and when they are justly administered, and we are watching the results in the fruits of the happening right now, America is learning how to succeed with a narcissistic POTUS, because America is pulsing its muscles in the judicial branch, which easily crushes any borderline ridiculous choices made by the executive branch, and very quickly, by most measures of government efficiency. This power is aimed at the executive branch, and outside of its limited purview, the judicial branch has virtually zero power, most judges are complete unknowns out in the rest of the world, and given no special treatment, even though they get their own parking spaces and offices (sometimes with private bathrooms) at courthouses, where they are the superheroes. They wield immense power within the limited and easily enforced and defended scope in which they operate. If you get into their arena, you will lose. The point is, don't get into their arena (don't break the law, and don't renege on any contracts), because you're going to lose if you do.

Here's the article. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...is-it-narcissism-or-why-some-people-cant-love

Not every narcissist has all of these traits but most have most of them.

 

[Ktoyou]

It was sideways! lain: Ah well.

I like to learn about animal brains. Which is more-or-less just animal behavior. They all, the animals, always maximize their mental powers, and that's why we can examine them so easily. We've no concern that the animals are actually smarter than us, and are merely putting on a show, because they know they're being watched.

This is where you lost me. :kookoo:

 

[Nihilo]

This is where you lost me. :kookoo:

I thank you for the feedback. :e4e:

 

[Ktoyou]

I thank you for the feedback. :e4e:

Good to see you can be big about it. Teach that and I would be rather impressed.

 

[Nihilo]

Good to see you can be big about it. Teach that and I would be rather impressed.

:chuckle: You're so honest and I love that.