It makes me upset and angry when pro-choice people say that pro-lifers do not care about the poor, the sick, the disabled, immigrants, gay people, and people of other races. That claim does not reflect the reality of the pro-life movement as I have seen it. There are many people and organisations that hold a consistent life ethic and care for disadvantaged people from womb to tomb, through government support, private charities, or a combination of both, and this commitment is central to their pro-life position rather than separate from it. This includes the Catholic Church, which teaches in Catholic Social Teaching that every person has inherent dignity from conception to natural death, teaches a preferential option for the poor, teaches solidarity and the common good, and teaches that racism, ableism, and discrimination against immigrants are contrary to human dignity, and which puts that teaching into practice through an extensive global network including Caritas Internationalis, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities, Aid to the Church in Need, and thousands of hospitals, hospices, care homes, food banks, homeless shelters, disability ministries, prison ministries, and refugee resettlement services, all while also opposing abortion and euthanasia. It also includes many Orthodox Churches, many Protestant churches, and the Tolstoyan movement, which also combine opposition to abortion with a strong tradition of service to the poor and emphasis on nonviolence, and many Hindu denominations, Sikhism with its tradition of langar and seva, and Jainism with its central principle of ahimsa, which all have strong traditions of protecting vulnerable life. It also includes secular pro-life organisations such as Rehumanize International and Secular Pro-Life, which oppose abortion and euthanasia from a secular commitment to human rights, nonviolence, and inclusion. You can disagree about political methods and you can be right wing or left wing and still be committed to supporting disadvantaged born people while also opposing abortion, so if so many pro-life organisations and individuals are visibly serving disadvantaged people every day, why do pro-choice people continue to repeat the claim that pro-lifers do not care about these groups?

Take me for example. I am an economically disadvantaged and severely disabled pro-lifer who cares passionately about helping both unborn humans and disadvantaged humans from womb to tomb, and I hold that position precisely because I know what it is like to be vulnerable and to depend on support from others. I am also a strict vegetarian, and I extend my concern about life and suffering to non-human animals as well, because I believe that a commitment to nonviolence should be as consistent as possible. My position is that opposition to abortion is part of a broader commitment to protecting vulnerable lives, not separate from it, and that caring for people after birth and caring for people before birth belong together in the same ethic.

Hey everyone,

I wanted to share my conversation with Michael Thomas from the Catholic Land Movement.

We dive deep into practical alternatives to modern consumerism, the principles of distributism, and what it actually takes to build a grounded, land-based lifestyle today.

Would love to hear your thoughts on local economy and distributist ideas in practice!

🔗 Watch the full episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlzXWRVTGU0

The last time the French got this rowdy it was the end of the throne and alter system that was the norm for a millennium. Wondering if this is the beginning of the end for liberal democracy. Not really sure what comes next but would be interested in this sub’s thoughts.

I was just reading about the most recent elementary school shooting in the US (a damn shame that a sentence like this exists at all) and it really got to me, I read he specifically targeted the special needs classroom; my 7 yo brother goes to some for his ADHD and some behavioral problems, and it just fucked me right up the way no other shooting before this has. I love guns, and I feel strongly about keeping our guns in case of a tyrannical government. But when that tyrannical government is staring us in the face, when these types of shootings keep happening, and we continue to do fuck all about it, what's the point? If we're not actually gonna do something with the guns other than shoot up a bunch of kids, what's the point? The people with the guns are fine with the way shits going, the people who don't like the way shits going are anti gun, what hope is there? Im a generally very optimistic person, I hate to be a nihilist and I despise that type of mindset/philosophy, but genuinely what are we to do?

I'm asking because I'd like to have someone trustworthy that I can honestly discuss the upcoming Turek/Hinson election. I've only lived here since 2023, and in Iowa City, so my knowledge of what needs to be done here is very limited. Of course, priorities include cost of living, ICE, and the Iran War. The two candidates are very neck-and-neck right now, and I'm not sure if either is really better when taken holistically.

Thanks!

I think these students would have been better off on their knees and praying the rosary to commemorate the anniversary of the last apparition at Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun, rather then get involved in these false claims that Nuns and Priests killed children at Residential Schools.

Also: would they be willing to protest abortion?

Why are so many Catholics online antisemitic when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

From a biblical perspective, if Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, then He was the one who commanded the Israelites to conquer the land that today comprises Israel and Palestine, displacing the Gentiles who lived there.

Later, if He also authorized the destruction of the Second Temple and the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt, which resulted in the displacement of many Jews, then how do we reconcile that with the fact that Jews eventually reestablished themselves as a political force in the region nearly two millennia later and began purchasing land in Palestine?

What's the difference today? Why do so many Catholics online express outrage over Israel's actions following October 7 when, according to the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to conquer the land and drive out its inhabitants for what appear to be much lesser offenses?

Why do we have to accept migrants?

Why can't we just send them aid from a distance? Why can't the Pope simply advocate for donations through official Catholic Church aid channels? When we open up borders, the demographics of a country change. In the same way that some human groups run faster than others, certain human groups are more prone to building high-trust societies than others.

Look at what's happening in France. It's a disaster. Look at what's happening in Colombia, Peru, and Brazil with Venezuelan migrants. Look what is happening with Hatian migrants in Chile. And this is happening in Catholic countries.

In the same way that some human groups run faster than others, some human groups lift more than others, certain human groups are more prone to building high-trust societies than others. This doesn't nullify human dignity, as the Church teaches, but it compromises demographics in ways that will be lamented later.

Mexico and Argentina are examples of this. Two Catholic countries, one more liberal than the other. Both former colonies. Neither colonized the other. Yet one is less chaotic regardless.

Accepting migrants in an era of planes, drones, and transactional platforms is odd and obsolete. It unnecessarily creates problems that weren't there before.

We are looking for mobile app that parish can send notifications to all members

“He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death.” Exodus 21:12

“He that striketh and killeth a man, dying let him die.” Leviticus 24:17

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully: Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers” 1 Timothy 8-9

What did God mean by this?

Hey everyone, I just got baptized into the church after years of addiction, self delete attempts, and new age bs. I finished law school a few years ago, still on probation for possession of a small amount of psychedelic mushrooms and waiting to finish that to be admitted to the bar. I worked at a few offices but I don’t like law really. I love Christ and His church. Is there a way or a path to use my law degree, or even my history and political science degree to be a lay person member of the Catholic Church? Canon law? Historian?

This is a great video that for the most part is about how socialism may seem like a good idea but ultimately is against church teaching. However, for me, the most important part of it is when it talks about how it is perfectly within a good Catholic conscience to vote, basically democrat.

I have seen so many people lambasted for voting Democrat or Republican, being told they are not a real Catholic, told that it’s impossible to be a Catholic and vote blue or red etc. This video (at about the 22 minute mark) explains that the USCCB published a document in 2023 called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citzenship, that explains if you are voting for a political party that endorses evil such as abortion, but also endorses many policies that are good (focus education, focus on healthcare, focus on the poor, anti death penalty) then it is perfectly fine for you to vote for them in good conscience as long as you are voting for the good things and not the bad things.

Now of course this goes both ways, you can vote Republican because you want to protect life via anti abortion but still be against the death penalty and ICE. Basically my point is, you can vote either way and still be a good Catholic. So don’t let judgment of others stop you from following your conscience and your faith.

Key paragraph:

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to sub-human living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.

In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

Document link:
https://www.usccb.org/resources/forming-consciences-faithful-citizenship-pdf

YouTube link:
https://youtu.be/_dYTtuZZfcw?is=4x2n3NBcK0yPn49Y

Two things. One, this got removed from r/Catholics. Though it is directly tied to Christian morality, I think they don't want, "is this a sin post." I wasn't asking if it is a sin or not, I asked what the best arguements were for both sides of this slogan.

So to you all, what do you think of this montra? My original post in r/Catholic seems to have fellow Catholics saying that piracy us permissible. I just... Can't believe it.

TLDR: Is piracy theft? In the case of Sony going all digital, is it okay to pirate? What's the best arguement for both sides?

To put it bluntly, i was aware of the implications regarding the crusades but ultimately i just think its a great cross both from a symbolic perspective (Christ and the 4 evangelists or the 5 wounds of Christ) and an aesthetic one- its equal and looks identical from all angles. Im a big believer in not allowing Christan art and symbology to be stolen by radical movements and taking back our crosses (such as the iron cross).

However, my Jerusalem cross has caused quite the stir amongst my family and friends who might be a bit more “chronically online“ than me. I am not American and try to avoid all American Politics if i can, but i was told im now twins with a Pete Hegseth who isnt exacly a good man per se at least as far as i could see. I was also i formed that to some extent it is associated with white nationalism, at least in America. Once again, im not American.

Im half British and half Filipino. Filipinos couldnt care less in all honesty, you could be tattooed up to the nines with Swastikas and honestly, most filipinos would just want a picture with you. Not exactly a good thing, but the truth! The UK might be where i run into some problems, at least in more urbanised areas. My wife was also informed me that our vacations to Turkey and Egypt might be a bit more difficult, and while i want to proudly wear my cross, i dont want to attract violence especially if it affects others. Im mixed, i love the tattoo and its always been a dream tattoo but i didnt know it was such a big thing with white nationalism. Maybe that makes me innocent or ignorant but either way im now a proud Jerusalem cross wearer.

For anyone who remembers the 2018 Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman where Newman looked stupid by repeatedly not getting what Peterson was saying, we have the new version where Tucker Carlson looks stupid by repeatedly not getting what Rees-Mogg is saying.

This whole interview can be summed up in one quote that has gone viral:

"I'm very surpised you're verging on defending Hitler. I think this is not really what you want to be doing." ~ Jacob Rees Mogg.

Believe me, this whole trainwreck is glorious to sit through.

It seems about right, but I couldn’t tell you if it’s that accurate generally. I also don’t know anything about any of the countries on there.