0
0

[–] Davelon ago 

To be honest from what I've been reading here and on the chans, I'm not too sure there will be a 'Papacy' as such for much longer. I'd be much more concerned about the Muslim influence within the Fed Gov and other positions of influence than worry about the Catholics.

0
1

[–] XGemInaV 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

For Catholics, the Pope is supposed to be our spiritual father and in spiritual and moral matters he holds supremacy.

However, with respect to political matters, Catholics are the best patriots a country can ask for. I am Catholic and I love my church but I also love my country. If the Pope tells me to betray the constitution, he can bugger off. I think most Catholics would share my sentiments.

It is unfortunate that this particular Pope, i.e. Francis, is probably one of the worst theologians we've had and is possibly connected to the gay-pedo cabal that has infiltrated the institutional church through traitorous bishops like McCarrick, Wuerl, Cocopalmerio, Maradiaga etc., as per Bella Dodd.

0
0

[–] Publius1778 [S] ago  (edited ago)

The Pope today is painted as a merely spiritually figure over only Catholism when in fact he has political power over a massive top down hierarchy. Why does he think he can wade into all manner of politics across nations in his public comments? Next the Vatican bank which he is in control of is one of the wealthiest banks in the world. Even see Godfather III. The CIA since its inception has used the Vatican Bank to launder its drug, guns and human trafficking money. See/Research Operation Gladio.

Next the Pope has the Jesuits, effectively his version of the CIA, but they are citizens of other nations and members of other governments, yet they pay allegiance on pain of death to the Pope.

Lastly the Papacy has never been solely a spiritual institution. It has had and fought for political power against kings and nations since its founding. There is the pretense that this has changed, but it has not.

Then there is the Treaty of Verona of 1822 in which Catholic nations and Russia (all monarchies) concluded that republics were their mortal enemy and should be destroyed. This pact had the blessing of the Pope.

This pact was read into the congressional record, when discovered by the US, in 1916.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church still holds that the Pope is the ruler of the world and they do not accept the existence of "heretic" religions.

The Catholic Church is the early manifestation of the hope of a One World Order/Globalism. "The Sun and the Moon"

0
0

[–] XGemInaV ago 

The Pope may have temporal power, but that does not make him a world dictator. The primacy given to Peter by Jesus was a spiritual primacy, 'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven etc.'

The Catholic Church is the people of God, the spotless bride of Christ. Outside of her, there is no salvation.

The Pope does not tell me what to do or who to vote for on a political level. However, the moral teachings of the church (abortion is immoral, gay-marriage is not really marriage etc.) informs my political views and decisions.

0
0

[–] time3times ago 

One answer to your basic question - why Cathlicks and no Proddies? - is partly because high-end legalfag Catholics meet the expectations of conservative presidents more reliably or more frequently than high-end legalfag Protestants. (Note that all of the Jewish justices were picked by Democrats presidents). Your average hard working, upstanding, conventional, legal type, if protestant, is more likely to support abortion & gayness, oppose death penalty, etc. Not to say that there aren't atypicals on all sides (such as Sotomayor) but just that there are proportionately more Catholics in line with standard (old school) conservatism, and if chosen without specific interrogation are more predictable in views on unspoken issues. This claim I make here does not explain the extreme numbers that make up the SC but I would guess explains about half of that make up.

Those social issues have played a large part of the conservative/progressive divide and do so even today in scotus politics. If other areas of law were so emphasized, I think we would have a different scotus roster. Recall that it was Catholics who were most vocal about Roe v Wade in the 70's. (Despite the likes of Ted Kennedy, etc.) It was Catholics who started the annual March for Life. Most Protestant denominations did not have a clear position on the topic, whereas Catholic doctrine on abortion had been established back in Roman times and remained unchanged (until the present pope who thinks he's some progressive hero).

Seems wrong to paint alumni from Jesuit colleges with the evil that colors many Jesuits. Feel free to disagree.

To clarify your argument you have clarify how you define Catholic and Protestant. I had no idea that Gorsuch had any Catholicity in his past. I think by most definitions he is Protestant. Your definitions and mileage may vary. You could be pleased to learn that Gorsuch walked away from things Catholic, which makes him more of a personal protestant than others who were just born into the denominations. Same with Pence - he left the old church behind as a personal choice and yet he gets flack.

0
0

[–] Publius1778 [S] ago 

All these points were in my mind when I wrote and I think they are all reasonable, but still fail to explain why so many.

First how conservative are catholics or their schools these day? Since Vatican II the church has been moving toward liberalism/socialism...

My thought is that they jesuit schools apart from excellent schools are feeders to high positions like the SCOTUS, in the same way all the elite schools are and the point is that these people get more than merely a good education and I am curious what else.

If you've read the Jesuit oath, I can't see why they would ever abandon or when they did, their original purposes as a kind of papal army. Otherwise its just an august name.

0
0

[–] time3times ago 

My attempted explanation only covers part of the territory. I estimate about half of the situation is adequately explained. Your question is reasonable (while bits of your data seem not to be). I have wondered the same thing. I can only offer a hint of further explanation. I can't readily defend this idea but suggest it in the spirit of Occam's Razor. There are so many Catholic SCOTUS justices because God has some plan that we should trust. It seems that one could look at the unexpected situation (which didn't exist before Roe v Wade) and conclude that it is strangely bad or strangely good. I'm rooting for the good version. My guess is that we won't find a satisfactory answer to your question for a while.

Commentary below is secondary and a bit off topic:

Keep in mind that most Catholics on the SC started their lives before Vat II. And the false spirit of Vat II is not yet fully rolled out. First infiltrators avoided the old teachings whereever they could in select places and then years later replaced them with modernism and the like. The current catholic landscape is such that there is a minority of folks (ordained and lay) still out there holding their ground. Some have managed to wade through the mainstream nonsense and keep their principles. I have no doubt that Kavanagh and Coney Barrett were aware of the modcon issues at their higher ed. institutions, even when they were students. This is the standard struggle for conservative catholics in our generation. Same with conservative anglicans in England these days. Same with conservatives at state colleges - bite your tounge, get the degree, move on till you have some influence.

You needn't accept my advice, but here goes: Don't think of all Jesuits as the same anti-christs. Some are not at all. And beware that much of the same disease shows up in varying frequency in other catholic orders (as well as in other Christian denominations). It does happen that in general Jesuits deserve most of the reputation that they have, but this reputation is way older than Vat II. The hilarious british writer G.K. Chesterton coined the perjorative term Jesuistry over a hundred years ago.

Jesuits have long played the education angle in their mission work, thusly so many Jesuit colleges in the US. However students at these schools are not jesuits and they take no oath to the order (any more than Notre Dame students take an oath to the Order of the Holy Cross). I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most Fed-level judges that are catholic went to a jesuit school at some point in their past. However only a tiny minority would have made any specifically jesuit vow. The Jesuit oath or vow is irrelevant within topic of federal judges. Even among Jesuits in our time the vows of obedience, etc. are only adhered to in a pick-and-choose relativist way. As the 2 previous popes were generally conservative and fairly traditionalist, many jesuits simply ignored their vows of obedience and went their own way, often criticizing those popes. The current pope, possibly the most corrupt Jesuit ever, had to contravene his vows by accepting the papacy.

0
0

[–] G45Colt ago 

Hey, I just remembered (from history, not experience) that when John f Kennedy was running for president, one of the big questions raised was - Would he essentially turn over the presidency to the pope?

I think the real question was - Can we corrupt him to do our bidding? They probably figured they had a chance given the crimes of his dad.

0
0

[–] Publius1778 [S] ago 

yes there is a deep irony that he was FIGHTING the Vatican among others.

0
0

[–] numina18 ago 

I don't know how "loyalty to the Papacy", whatever that might be, could come before the Constitution. You need to explain how that might work. I don't get it. I'm no fan of Catholicism, but individuals are not necessarily corrupt just because they are Catholics.

0
0

[–] Publius1778 [S] ago 

Its very simple. Their loyalties like with the Pope.

First, tell me, do judges reach opinions that are in fact NOT consistent with the Constitution? Does that every happen? Yes, actually quite frequently.

Tell me, how do fancy lawyers with massive educations reach a bogus court ruling that is actually inconsistent with the Constitution?

Just use fancy, subtle legalese to conceal their deformation and deviation from the Constitution. It's done all the time....

If the SCOTUS reaches an opinion that does not appear consistent with the Constitution, who does that ruling get appealed to?

Yes, that's right, because the Supreme Court is supreme, or final in these matters. To a degree, if the SCOTUS says it, its "constitutional."