lehaus45

quote:

---

From a traditional Catholic viewpoint, a preemptive strike is a tragic but potentially justifiable response to an imminent and certain attack—essentially, the enemy’s sword is already mid-swing, and you move to parry. In contrast, preventative war—attacking a nation simply to stop a potential threat that might develop years down the road—is categorically rejected by Just War Theory. The Catechism requires that for a war to be "just," the damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain. Striking someone because they might one day become a threat fails the test of "certainty" and violates the principle of "last resort."

This brings us to the President’s recent rhetoric. If, as the President himself has claimed, Iran has already lost its nuclear capabilities, then the primary justification for military intervention effectively evaporates. If the "threat" is no longer imminent or even developing, there is no "just cause" for the U.S. to maintain a combat presence or threaten further strikes.

---

I appreciate your knowledge of the subject but I disagree wholeheartedly about your interpretation of preemptive strike. Categorizing it as "when the enemy's sword is already mid-swing" implies the enemy has already started offensive operations. Preemptive or first strike is a preventative attack to take down an almost certain aggressor before they have a chance to act.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if an aggressor has or will soon have the capability of doing grave damage to your side, then it becomes self-defense, which every nation has the right to, as long as it is a last resort.

Vatican II, in the midst of growing Soviet and US tensions at the time, specifically advocated all nation eliminate First Strike or Mutually Assured Destruction Strategies. This provision does not appear in the Catechism for good reason.

The President claiming that Iran has lost its nuclear capabilities was correct for March 2025, but that was over a year ago and that ship has sailed. They now have delivery vehicles at their disposal that can reach most of Europe, and they still have enriched uranium which can reach nuclear capability in the not too distant future. Besides the point that Iran is run by a radical Islamic theocracy that would not hesitate to use its citizens as shields or make martyrs out of them, how can anybody believe they would not use their nukes? Also, this is not a rift between two states--this is a rift between a state and a state sponsor of terror whose mission is to kill anyone that doesn't agree with their beliefs. They have chanted death to America for decades and threatened to kill us for decades. You know very well that the threat is not "no longer imminent or even developing". It is imminent and close to full development.

This is self-defense, not only for us, but for the rest of Iran's enemies, which is most of the world.

Trump has negotiated to give up having a nuclear capability and they refused. The damage they can cause is grave, lasting and certain (certain because they say they will use them and have repeatedly threatened to kill us), we have good prospects for success, and it absolutely is the last resort. hence, THIS IS A JUST WAR.

Hello again Foo. I know that you have identified yourself in a prior post to me as being a Reformed Presbyterian. And I responded to you:

"Correct me if my research is wrong, but didn't your church of Reformed Presbyterian believe the Pope to be the anti-Christ? Didn't your church also declare the US Constitution immoral because it did not list Christ as King of the country? Your members not allowed to vote? Has this been rectified? If so, how is it that a church that is only a few hundred years old could have change it's doctrine so often?"

You go on and on criticizing the fallibility of the Church, the Pope, etc., and believe that your "better than everyone else's" interpretation of Scripture leads you to this kind of reasoning? Is that where Scripture has led you and your little group? Wow!

Dennis Prager

I checked out a few websites based on the recommendations and the picture of the muff from R&O's is killer! The ingredients including capicola and mortadella, along with the cheeses is what I am looking for the most. Sad to see it is in Metairie.

I am hosting a luncheon group in a few weeks and looking for great muffulettas.

Not too happy with Anthony's as they smash them down in a press, and not a big fan of their olive salad.

Appreciate suggestions in the Baton Rouge area.

Dear Drizzt,

You and I have common ground. We are appalled at pedophilia and its coverup. We have common ground in I believe we share a zero tolerance mentality to the issue.

Where we differ is that you seem to think that only Catholics covered this up. It seems really cool for Protestants to gang up on the Church, while trying to claim some type of moral high ground that pedophilia and its coverups does not apply to them.

Have you ever heard of coverups in Protestant congregations? If so, what were they? How were they handled? If you haven't doesn't it concern you? I, for one, can't recall any major Protestant coverups.

Look at this report from the website of the Stop Abuse Campaign, a voluntary group formed to protect abuse victims.

"The Catholic church seems to have a near monopoly on child sexual abuse in religious settings. But looks can be deceiving, and it appears that child sexual abuse in Protestant churches is more common".

Another excerpt from their website: "It is extremely hard to know the exact rates of child sexual abuse in any institution, especially since it takes survivors, on average, 21 years before talking about their abuse*. But churches, like all other corporate entities that work with the public, have insurance, and only a few insurance providers insure churches. These three companies, in 2007, said they received about 260 reports of sexual abuse per year from Protestant churches and about 228 from Catholic churches."

There are about 1.4 billion Catholics, and about 1 billion Protestants worldwide, so do the math. 1.4 billion Catholics with 228 abuse charges per year versus 1 billion Protestants with 226 abuse reports. Which has the higher rate? Isn't that interesting?

I cannot recall a major story of Protestant abuse in the media. Why is that? Did the Protestants find out about abuses and successfully snuff them out? I don't think so, or they wouldn't have a higher rate of abuses still reported. If they didn't stop pedophilia, and it is not in the media, could it be some instances of successful coverups? If I had to bet, I'd bet heavily on yes. A successful coverup is one you never heard of.

Protestants have no business throwing stones.

FooManChoo, You seem like a wonderful guy, but I have to disagree on your response.

You are correct about me equating St Ignatius's use of Catholic Church and attaching it to the modern as well as the early church, since it is one and the same--the line of succession has never been broken. Yes we tout history on our side because the Catholic Church is historical. And you are correct--St Ignatius as well as other church fathers had to defend what was gathered from the apostles from heretical theories popping up by many groups. It is a real stretch for some to come in 1500 years later and redefine Catholic or Universal as inclusive of all Christian churches.

St. Ignatius wrote in his letter, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

St Ignatius wrote to obey your bishop, but apparently that had a statute of limitations of 1500 years. After that time I guess, it was ok to break away and contradict the Church, and not work with your bishop to address issues and reform from within. Strange, I did not see that statute of limitations in biblical scripture, as that is our only guideline to follow. Heck, I didn't even see in the Bible that it was ok to remove books of the Bible if you didn't like them. Isn't it strange that our one book and only source of salvation didn't mention that anyone can adjust the Bible to their liking? I'm still trying to work that one out. St. Ignatius had a line in his letter "But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils".

As far as transubstantiation, it is the highest level of interpretation of the presence of God in the Eucharist, and if I am ever to be wrong about worshipping, I would easily rather be on the "over worshipped" side of the equation. Would God ever say, "Oh, you're over worshipping me, cut it out, don't, stop it now, I don't deserve such honor." I don't know if you know it but Catholics have Adoration Services in which the blessed host is displayed in a monstrance and available for those to kneel before it, meditate and pray. Parishes also have an Adoration Chapel with the host on display that is open always for worship. Catholics truly adore and worship the Eucharist, and that is not a bad thing, it is a wonderful thing. And I think Protestants can back off of their nuanced criticism of what is in the host because it is counter productive and doing nothing but pulling down worshippers that real love Christ.

At Easter service last week, my Catholic daughter went to a Lutheran worship with her husband and his family. She was allowed to go to communion. While in line for communion, a host was dropped on the floor. She was stunned that neither the one who dropped it nor anyone in line did anything but ignore it. Out of reverence, when she got up it to, she picked it up and ate it. To her the host could not be disrespected by laying on the floor any longer. This is a woman who would never eat off of the floor, but she did not hesitate an instant because of her belief in the incredible gift and love of the Eucharist

You say you believe in the real presence in the Eucharist and I am glad you adore Jesus, but this is a huge Protestant problem as there are so many interpretations on the spectrum of belief. How many other denominations agree with yours? Although I appreciate and am glad to be somewhat aligned with Protestant brothers and sisters, this is my problem: Having so many interpretations about the Eucharist, about interpreting scripture is totally unacceptable. One universal church established by Jesus himself could not possibly have so many conflicting doctrines. The only thing I see as not conflicting between the denominations is having a common rival or enemy to rag on and pull down Catholics.

Correct me if my research is wrong, but didn't your church of Reformed Presbyterian believe the Pope to be the anti-Christ? Didn't your church also declare the US Constitution immoral because it did not list Christ as King of the country? Your members not allowed to vote? Has this been rectified? If so, how is it that a church that is only a few hundred years old could have change it's doctrine so often?

But here's some good news we can both enjoy---Christ is risen and alive!

I don't mean to trouble you again, but can you perhaps, out of all of the multitude of lies, pick out the top three whoppers?

In the meanwhile, perhaps you should channel and debate St Ignatius of Antioch, who, in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (about 107 AD) , used the term Catholic Church (the earliest surviving use of the term) to describe the worldwide body of the Christian faithful. He preached among other things, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the primacy of the Roman Church, and the authority of priests and bishops.

What are his credentials? He served 40 years as Bishop to Antioch. He was installed there by Apostles Peter and Paul. His belief in the Catholic Church led him to a painful martyrdom. Oh by the way, he was a disciple of the Apostle John. Boy, I can't wait to see his reaction when being schooled by a Prostetant that he was wrong about so much!

Pedophile in Chief? Are you talking about former President Biden? The one who showered with his 12 year old daughter according to her own diary? The one who let little black boys rub the hair on his legs while he was a life guard? The one who sniffs little girls' hair during photo ops? The one I suspect you voted for? So did you vote for him Golfer1865?

Where did the one or ones who decided to take out the books get their authority?

How did they decide they were fake?

What made them more expert than the Fathers of the Church that put the canon of the Bible together?

What tests or criterion did they use?

Having time to do some research before the birthday event, my wife and I went on a mac and cheese crawl to four of the earlier recommendations: Hannah's Q, Our Mom's, The Big Cheezy, and Gatti's. We brought home samples and let my granddaughter judge them.

The results were:
1. Gatti's
2. Our Mom's
3. Hannah's Q
4. The Big Cheezy

This surprised my wife and I as we thought she'd pick Our Mom's since it is the most like Kraft, even a deeper yellow color like Kraft than the others.

Not surprisingly, she did not like The Big Cheezy at all, as my wife and I didn't care for it either. The sample we had few noodles, almost 50-50 ratio to the Bechamel sauce, and the seasoning was not that enticing.

My wife and I both preferred Hannah's because it served a smoke gouda cheese that actually had smokey flavor. We ranked Our Mom's second, Gatti's, and The Big Cheezy fourth.

The crawl was kind of fun and we may check out a few more places. Thanks again for the input.