The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Lower Nubia]

Have you ever heard of a party whip?

The Conservative Party does a free vote on those issues. They don't use a whip (unlike the other major parties, who whip for these things)

Which shows the shallowness of the traditionalism. They won’t even muster the political clout to safeguard the moral’s they supposedly value.

[Hakons]

Lol, not sure why the smiley face was there.

So, once again, you're advocating that Catholics should have no place in a hostile public sphere? It is impermissible for Catholics to vote on Catholic issues but remain in a major party? If they don't remain in a major party, they wont be in the office by the next election. You're asking for a full surrender of the public sphere to people that would be even worse for the Church than a Catholic that votes Catholic sometimes but tows the party line on votes of confidence.

I’ve highlighted the key assumption. Since when have moral issues taken a back seat for political considerations? The ends do not justify the means.

I'm not justifying the means. Simply being in a party doesn't carry collective guilt, my goodness. If a Catholic politician votes for Catholic teaching while still remaining in a party that broadly doesn't follow Catholic teaching, they're still a Catholic in good standing trying to apply Catholic social teaching to the government. You still haven't answered to my criticism, where you effectively want to take all Christian influence out of politics. I find that unacceptable, and so does Catholic teaching, which calls Catholics to be engaged in public discourse and politics. You seem to be advocating for some kind of extreme purity, but avoiding political society altogether is expressly against Church teaching, and the near countless Christian politicians that have done many wonderful things to aid the Church and her mission run precisely contrary to your argument.

[Lower Nubia]

I’ve highlighted the key assumption. Since when have moral issues taken a back seat for political considerations? The ends do not justify the means.

I'm not justifying the means. Simply being in a party doesn't carry collective guilt, my goodness. If a Catholic politician votes for Catholic teaching while still remaining in a party that broadly doesn't follow Catholic teaching, they're still a Catholic in good standing trying to apply Catholic social teaching to the government. You still haven't answered to my criticism, where you effectively want to take all Christian influence out of politics. I find that unacceptable, and so does Catholic teaching, which calls Catholics to be engaged in public discourse and politics. You seem to be advocating for some kind of extreme purity, but avoiding political society altogether is expressly against Church teaching, and the near countless Christian politicians that have done many wonderful things to aid the Church and her mission run precisely contrary to your argument.

Until you factor in that if that party is not in good Catholic standings and that Catholic person is giving that government power, he implicitly becomes part of that party guilt. Your position otherwise is very 1 dimensional, that the collective and Individual actions are separate, but I believe that counters the definition of “party”: a collection of individuals.

You’re also making an unfair assumption for Mogg’s position. He isn’t surrendering the public sphere, the public sphere is already totally succumb to secularism. Mogg isn’t going to produce some top down affect, not without compromising Catholic doctrine elsewhere to maintain his collective responsibility as an individual to his anti-Catholic moral party.

If you want change, it has to come from the bottom up, which is an issue with evangelism, not my position of separating the compromise effect that governance has on Christian morals for irrelevant “victories”.

[Hakons]

I'm not justifying the means. Simply being in a party doesn't carry collective guilt, my goodness. If a Catholic politician votes for Catholic teaching while still remaining in a party that broadly doesn't follow Catholic teaching, they're still a Catholic in good standing trying to apply Catholic social teaching to the government. You still haven't answered to my criticism, where you effectively want to take all Christian influence out of politics. I find that unacceptable, and so does Catholic teaching, which calls Catholics to be engaged in public discourse and politics. You seem to be advocating for some kind of extreme purity, but avoiding political society altogether is expressly against Church teaching, and the near countless Christian politicians that have done many wonderful things to aid the Church and her mission run precisely contrary to your argument.

Until you factor in that if that party is not in good Catholic standings and that Catholic person is giving that government power, he implicitly becomes part of that party guilt. Your position otherwise is very 1 dimensional, that the collective and Individual actions are separate, but I believe that counters the definition of “party”: a collection of individuals.

You’re also making an unfair assumption for Mogg’s position. He’s isn’t surrendering the public sphere, the public sphere is already totally succumb to secularism. Mogg isn’t going to produce some top down affect, not without compromising Catholic doctrine elsewhere to maintain his collective responsibility as an indivifuall to his anti-Catholic moral party.

If you want change, it has to come from the bottom up, which is an issue with evangelism, not my position of separating the compromise effect that governance has on Christian morals for irrelevant “victories”.

So, once again, you're offering no political solution. The public isn't totally succumbed to secularism, since there are still obviously religious people. You seem to want religious people to roll over and let the secularist take control of government (which will make the society even more secular). Your position provides no defense for the Christian minority (though that in itself is dubious to assert that we're minority Christian). Christian political success isn't "irrelevant." Pro-life victories that save children from being killed isn't irrelevant. Stopping aggressive secularism in schools isn't irrelevant. Stopping anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination isn't irrelevant. We can't abandon the public sphere to follow your purity test, especially considering the Church doesn't even back your purity test.

[Lower Nubia]

Until you factor in that if that party is not in good Catholic standings and that Catholic person is giving that government power, he implicitly becomes part of that party guilt. Your position otherwise is very 1 dimensional, that the collective and Individual actions are separate, but I believe that counters the definition of “party”: a collection of individuals.

You’re also making an unfair assumption for Mogg’s position. He’s isn’t surrendering the public sphere, the public sphere is already totally succumb to secularism. Mogg isn’t going to produce some top down affect, not without compromising Catholic doctrine elsewhere to maintain his collective responsibility as an indivifuall to his anti-Catholic moral party.

If you want change, it has to come from the bottom up, which is an issue with evangelism, not my position of separating the compromise effect that governance has on Christian morals for irrelevant “victories”.

So, once again, you're offering no political solution. The public isn't totally succumbed to secularism, since there are still obviously religious people. You seem to want religious people to roll over and let the secularist take control of government (which will make the society even more secular). Your position provides no defense for the Christian minority (though that in itself is dubious to assert that we're minority Christian). Christian political success isn't "irrelevant." Pro-life victories that save children from being killed isn't irrelevant. Stopping aggressive secularism in schools isn't irrelevant. Stopping anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination isn't irrelevant. We can't abandon the public sphere to follow your purity test, especially considering the Church doesn't even back your purity test.

This is an unfair assessment, I hardly want the religious population to roll over. My lack of solution does not refute my characterisation of the problem. As an example, eliminating FPTP would allow a Catholic orientated party to potentially gain clout in parliament. What party stands in the way of that? The Conservatives and Labour. Which Catholic member of Parliament props one of those parties, while also ardently against PR? So we can see quite clearly that Mogg is actually a detriment to grassroots Catholic movements in the UK with just some inferred logic.

A solution would be that your assessment of England is first poor. We are religious, but only as cultural Christians. We vote for what provides more money, not what provides moral integrity. Second even amongst Christians here, anti-catholic dogma is usually acceptable, even abortion has disturbingly high acceptance amongst these cultural Christians.

It is clear that secularism rules the land and populace, even of the allegedly religious of England. Not to mention that the fractured religious landscape of England means there is not one concerted Christian movement for morals.

There is no solution to this problem. Either you compromise values in Parliament, or you start a grassroots catholic movement to bring down secularism. One of those is likely impossible, the other is damaging to Catholic integrity.

There is no solution, you just do what they did 1700 years ago, convert Rome bottom up and hope an Uncompromising Emperor takes hold.

Sorry for the dire prediction.

[Salus Maior]

Ok, but I don't see how that makes him a charlatan.

And is there a significant party in Britain that is pro-life and does not run counter to Catholic doctrine in one way or another?

“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.

To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent: he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.

Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.

Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?

Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.

[Lower Nubia]

“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.

To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent: he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.

Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.

Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?

Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.

It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:

"A solution would be that your assessment of England is first poor. We are religious, but only as cultural Christians. We vote for what provides more money, not what provides moral integrity. Second even amongst Christians here, anti-catholic dogma is usually acceptable, even abortion has disturbingly high acceptance amongst these cultural Christians.

It is clear that secularism rules the land and populace, even of the allegedly religious of England. Not to mention that the fractured religious landscape of England means there is not one concerted Christian movement for morals.

There is no solution to this problem. Either you compromise values in Parliament, or you start a grassroots catholic movement to bring down secularism. One of those is likely impossible, the other is damaging to Catholic integrity."

I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.

You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.

[Luminesa]

“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.

To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent: he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.

Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.

Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?

Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.

I don’t think he’s implying anything about you at all. I don’t know much about Rees-Moog, but I do know that Catholics are called to hold Catholic politicians to a high standard. It’s kinda comparable to the situation of a Newt Gingrich or a Paul Ryan here (both being prominent Catholic politicians). If you’re a Catholic politician, you’re called to be Catholic first, and we have to examine these people to see if they uphold as many Catholic doctrines as a Catholic is called to uphold.

Rees-Moog is pro-life, that’s great! But does he see the humanity of immigrants coming to Britain? How does he feel on the death penalty? What does he feel about drug legalization? Being pro-life obviously is most important, but to be a truly life-affirming, Catholic candidate he should hold a pro-life view on all of those things. Ezekiel says we hold teachers and leaders in such a high regard and that their personal judgment will be particularly harsh if they do not teach as they should. Paul says the same thing. You uphold orthodox Catholic doctrine, so you represent your beliefs well and I imagine you care much for your co-workers, as you should. Rees-Moog is called to do the same thing and then some, because his burden is a unique and difficult one.

[Diopolis]

Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.

Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?

Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.

I don’t think he’s implying anything about you at all. I don’t know much about Rees-Moog, but I do know that Catholics are called to hold Catholic politicians to a high standard. It’s kinda comparable to the situation of a Newt Gingrich or a Paul Ryan here (both being prominent Catholic politicians). If you’re a Catholic politician, you’re called to be Catholic first, and we have to examine these people to see if they uphold as many Catholic doctrines as a Catholic is called to uphold.

Rees-Moog is pro-life, that’s great! But does he see the humanity of immigrants coming to Britain? How does he feel on the death penalty? What does he feel about drug legalization? Being pro-life obviously is most important, but to be a truly life-affirming, Catholic candidate he should hold a pro-life view on all of those things. Ezekiel says we hold teachers and leaders in such a high regard and that their personal judgment will be particularly harsh if they do not teach as they should. Paul says the same thing. You uphold orthodox Catholic doctrine, so you represent your beliefs well and I imagine you care much for your co-workers, as you should. Rees-Moog is called to do the same thing and then some, because his burden is a unique and difficult one.

Ignoring whether catholic teaching on those issues has the clarity you're implying, the death penalty is not a major political issue in Britain to my knowledge.

[Salus Maior]

It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:

"A solution would be that your assessment of England is first poor. We are religious, but only as cultural Christians. We vote for what provides more money, not what provides moral integrity. Second even amongst Christians here, anti-catholic dogma is usually acceptable, even abortion has disturbingly high acceptance amongst these cultural Christians.

It is clear that secularism rules the land and populace, even of the allegedly religious of England. Not to mention that the fractured religious landscape of England means there is not one concerted Christian movement for morals.

There is no solution to this problem. Either you compromise values in Parliament, or you start a grassroots catholic movement to bring down secularism. One of those is likely impossible, the other is damaging to Catholic integrity."

I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.

You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment.

Even men of compromised value if standing for some good things still do some good things. Take Constantine for instance,I don't think anyone can dismiss his contributions to the acceptance and growth of Christianity, in fact he is canonized for this. But as a man, he did a lot of immoral things, such as ordering his wife and her unborn baby killed for cheating on him, and exiling orthodox clergy and favoring Arianism (in fact, he was baptized by an Arian).

He was a Roman Emperor who worked in what I'm sure you would call a corrupt system, either as bad or worse than your Parliament. And I don't justify what Constantine did or whatever wrongs Mog did, but I also don't expect anyone in a political office to be pure, dogmatic Christians, but it's important if there are people who are or sympathize with Christianity and moral principles in political office because that's really the only substantial means of change.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

What do Christians here think of early offshoots/heresies (e.g. Nestorians, Gnostics, Marcion)?

[Tarsonis]

It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:



I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.

You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment.

Even men of compromised value if standing for some good things still do some good things. Take Constantine for instance,I don't think anyone can dismiss his contributions to the acceptance and growth of Christianity, in fact he is canonized for this. But as a man, he did a lot of immoral things, such as ordering his wife and her unborn baby killed for cheating on him, and exiling orthodox clergy and favoring Arianism (in fact, he was baptized by an Arian).

He was a Roman Emperor who worked in what I'm sure you would call a corrupt system, either as bad or worse than your Parliament. And I don't justify what Constantine did or whatever wrongs Mog did, but I also don't expect anyone in a political office to be pure, dogmatic Christians, but it's important if there are people who are or sympathize with Christianity and moral principles in political office because that's really the only substantial means of change.

For the record he’s only a popular saint in the Latin Church, he’s not officially canonized as far as I can tell.

[Diopolis]

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment.

Even men of compromised value if standing for some good things still do some good things. Take Constantine for instance,I don't think anyone can dismiss his contributions to the acceptance and growth of Christianity, in fact he is canonized for this. But as a man, he did a lot of immoral things, such as ordering his wife and her unborn baby killed for cheating on him, and exiling orthodox clergy and favoring Arianism (in fact, he was baptized by an Arian).

He was a Roman Emperor who worked in what I'm sure you would call a corrupt system, either as bad or worse than your Parliament. And I don't justify what Constantine did or whatever wrongs Mog did, but I also don't expect anyone in a political office to be pure, dogmatic Christians, but it's important if there are people who are or sympathize with Christianity and moral principles in political office because that's really the only substantial means of change.

For the record he’s only a popular saint in the Latin Church, he’s not officially canonized as far as I can tell.

He is, however, canonized in various eastern rite churches in union with Rome, which is a pretty good argument for canonizations being fallible.

[Tarsonis]

What do Christians here think of early offshoots/heresies (e.g. Nestorians, Gnostics, Marcion)?

Dante said something about the sixth circle of hell, sounds about right

[Tarsonis]

For the record he’s only a popular saint in the Latin Church, he’s not officially canonized as far as I can tell.

He is, however, canonized in various eastern rite churches in union with Rome, which is a pretty good argument for canonizations being fallible.

I would imagine it is, as none of us can pierce the veil to see whose in heaven or not. Given that canonization is largely influenced by popular support I’ve always viewed canonization as more speculative than firm. Obviously some are easy, St. Mary, the Apostles and martyrs sure. The popular saints though, are a bit more speculative. Can’t say I’m a fan of the two miracle rule. I could perform a thousand miracles and my time in purgatory would still about 85,000 years.

[Salus Maior]

For the record he’s only a popular saint in the Latin Church, he’s not officially canonized as far as I can tell.

I've had some discussions with our Orthodox regulars offsite and apparently he is canonized. But both me and them kinda question it.

Although it is worth noting that the Arian who baptized Constantine was technically still part of the canonical Church at the time so it's probably still valid.

[Salus Maior]

He is, however, canonized in various eastern rite churches in union with Rome, which is a pretty good argument for canonizations being fallible.

I would imagine it is, as none of us can pierce the veil to see whose in heaven or not. Given that canonization is largely influenced by popular support I’ve always viewed canonization as more speculative than firm. Obviously some are easy, St. Mary, the Apostles and martyrs sure. The popular saints though, are a bit more speculative. Can’t say I’m a fan of the two miracle rule. I could perform a thousand miracles and my time in purgatory would still about 85,000 years.

Yeah, I kinda find how almost every post V2 Pope has been canonized to be a bit suspect.

I mean, I don't think most of them were more holy then many of the pre-conciliar Popes. And of course there's a lot of controversy involving them.

[Tarsonis]

I would imagine it is, as none of us can pierce the veil to see whose in heaven or not. Given that canonization is largely influenced by popular support I’ve always viewed canonization as more speculative than firm. Obviously some are easy, St. Mary, the Apostles and martyrs sure. The popular saints though, are a bit more speculative. Can’t say I’m a fan of the two miracle rule. I could perform a thousand miracles and my time in purgatory would still about 85,000 years.

Yeah, I kinda find how almost every post V2 Pope has been canonized to be a bit suspect.

I mean, I don't think most of them were more holy then many of the pre-conciliar Popes. And of course there's a lot of controversy involving them.

I thought just JP2 was

[Tarsonis]

For the record he’s only a popular saint in the Latin Church, he’s not officially canonized as far as I can tell.

I've had some discussions with our Orthodox regulars offsite and apparently he is canonized. But both me and them kinda question it.

Although it is worth noting that the Arian who baptized Constantine was technically still part of the canonical Church at the time so it's probably still valid.

He’s canonizes in the Orthodox Church, but not formally in the Latin church.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, I kinda find how almost every post V2 Pope has been canonized to be a bit suspect.

I mean, I don't think most of them were more holy then many of the pre-conciliar Popes. And of course there's a lot of controversy involving them.

I thought just JP2 was

Didn't they just canonize another guy?

[Salus Maior]

I've had some discussions with our Orthodox regulars offsite and apparently he is canonized. But both me and them kinda question it.

Although it is worth noting that the Arian who baptized Constantine was technically still part of the canonical Church at the time so it's probably still valid.

He’s canonizes in the Orthodox Church, but not formally in the Latin church.

Wikipedia says he's canonized in the RCC as well.

I imagine his canonization happened pre-schism so it'd apply to everyone, because it says he's also canonized in Oriental Orthodoxy.

[Tarsonis]

He’s canonizes in the Orthodox Church, but not formally in the Latin church.

Wikipedia says he's canonized in the RCC as well.

I imagine his canonization happened pre-schism so it'd apply to everyone, because it says he's also canonized in Oriental Orthodoxy.

Wikipedia isn’t the greatest source. I saw that too but there’s no citation. Everything I’ve read on the matter from the church suggests he was never formally canonized because he was a heretic and baptized by a heretic.

[Salus Maior]

Wikipedia says he's canonized in the RCC as well.

I imagine his canonization happened pre-schism so it'd apply to everyone, because it says he's also canonized in Oriental Orthodoxy.

Wikipedia isn’t the greatest source. I saw that too but there’s no citation. Everything I’ve read on the matter from the church suggests he was never formally canonized because he was a heretic and baptized by a heretic.

I don't know how much it matters that he was baptized by a heretic, if the heretic in question wasn't ejected from the church yet.

Because a sacrament is still validly done regardless of the sins of the priest.

[Napkizemlja]

Wow, you sure have a lot of venom when it comes to this guy. And it's really not justified.

Like I get that he's something of a highborn snob, but you're seriously calling into question his sincerity when it comes to his faith because he happens to work alongside people who aren't Catholics? Like what's the better solution here, that there be no Catholic or Pro-Life voices in the government or in decent positions?

Then I guess I'm not Catholic either, I work with Pro-Choice and Pro-LGBT coworkers. Guess I'm a charlatan too.

It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:

"A solution would be that your assessment of England is first poor. We are religious, but only as cultural Christians. We vote for what provides more money, not what provides moral integrity. Second even amongst Christians here, anti-catholic dogma is usually acceptable, even abortion has disturbingly high acceptance amongst these cultural Christians.

It is clear that secularism rules the land and populace, even of the allegedly religious of England. Not to mention that the fractured religious landscape of England means there is not one concerted Christian movement for morals.

There is no solution to this problem. Either you compromise values in Parliament, or you start a grassroots catholic movement to bring down secularism. One of those is likely impossible, the other is damaging to Catholic integrity."

I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.

You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.

Except he's right about the Boer War camps. They weren't designed to systematically kill Boers but to house refugees from the British anti-guerrilla campaign. You can argue that it was mismanaged but the intent was never to kill them off.

[Lower Nubia]

It's perfectly justified as I made clear in another post:



I'd love to know whether it's fine to compromise dogma on the public stage for nonexistent benefit.

You only like the guy because politically he's superficially Catholic, but after watching how he has meandered through the British political landscape of late, it becomes difficult to see him as anything but a charlatan.

I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment.

Even men of compromised value if standing for some good things still do some good things. Take Constantine for instance,I don't think anyone can dismiss his contributions to the acceptance and growth of Christianity, in fact he is canonized for this. But as a man, he did a lot of immoral things, such as ordering his wife and her unborn baby killed for cheating on him, and exiling orthodox clergy and favoring Arianism (in fact, he was baptized by an Arian).

He was a Roman Emperor who worked in what I'm sure you would call a corrupt system, either as bad or worse than your Parliament. And I don't justify what Constantine did or whatever wrongs Mog did, but I also don't expect anyone in a political office to be pure, dogmatic Christians, but it's important if there are people who are or sympathize with Christianity and moral principles in political office because that's really the only substantial means of change.

TLDR; compromise is inescapable because men are bad and situations are difficult.

Which is why we have the host of saints to remind us that these things - human nature and hard choices - are not valid reasons for allowing avoidable compromise.