Am I the only person who actually DISAGREES with Father Altman's video?

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Back on topic.

No parsing, but what exactly did Ratzinger say?   From what I’ve read, a person could vote for one of two pro abortion politicians if they believed one was less pro abortion than the other.   Hence, you could vote for one of the pro abortion Democrats with a clear conscience.  

However, there is a heavy burden to evaluate and a high threshold for greater good to vote for a pro-abortion candidate over an anti-abortion candidate.   Especially considering their stated platforms and agendas for the two premier political parties in a national election. 

Both Trump and Biden are "pro-abortion" to a certain extent, because both would allow abortion in certain circumstances in which the Church would prohibit it.

And it's not like abortion is the only issue that should be considered.

[Jaime]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Both Trump and Biden are "pro-abortion" to a certain extent, because both would allow abortion in certain circumstances in which the Church would prohibit it.

And it's not like abortion is the only issue that should be considered.

It isn't.  That being said, someone could check off 8 boxes of Catholic teaching and if they were prochoice, they won't get my vote. People say I'm a single issue voter. I disagree but I also don't apologize for it.  If a candidate was against abortion, was aligned with multiple catholic social issues but was also a supporter of NAMBLA  (s)he would not get my vote.   I believe that everyone is a single issue voter.  But it's likely that your single issue that you will never support doesnt come up that much.  

 I am also adamantly against calling this a two party system.  Italy has like a bajillion parties that run each election and their voting turnout is 73%. They have had as high as 90% in some national elections.  The two party system markets the idea of I "have to vote for candidate A or candidate B might win" a multi party system gives voters the opportunity to vote for the person they most want instead of against the person they hate.  

[Anomaly]

8 hours ago, Peace said:

Both Trump and Biden are "pro-abortion" to a certain extent, because both would allow abortion in certain circumstances in which the Church would prohibit it.

And it's not like abortion is the only issue that should be considered.

First off, thanks Peace and phat for your explanations and perspectives.  

Yes, I get that Trump isn’t entirely pro-life.  I really don’t think he cares but supports pro-life issues for political purposes only. 

But what issue is morally equivalent to hundreds of thousands of innocent infants being murdered every year?

If Trump only supports a possible anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice for Republican political strategy, what reasonable strategy would ever think Democrats even could support anyone anti-abortion in any role?

 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

First off, thanks Peace and phat for your explanations and perspectives.  

Yes, I get that Trump isn’t entirely pro-life.  I really don’t think he cares but supports pro-life issues for political purposes only. 

But what issue is morally equivalent to hundreds of thousands of innocent infants being murdered every year?

If Trump only supports a possible anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice for Republican political strategy, what reasonable strategy would ever think Democrats even could support anyone anti-abortion in any role?

 

I don't think there is any issue today that is as problematic from a moral perspective as the abortion issue, although in some respects the death penalty is more grave because it is a public act performed by the state on behalf of it's citizens.

But granting that abortion is the most important issue, we have to take into account a politician's ability to affect the issue. To be frank, the president has very little ability, if any, to reduce the number of abortions. It is very speculative to assume that a vote for Trump in 2020 will result in any decrease in the number of abortions, either now or in the future. The president nominates judges to the Supreme Court. If one of the 9 members of the court dies or leaves office during the president's term, the president will have a chance to nominate a judge as successor. The judge will not have made public his/her opinion on the validity of Roe, nor can he predetermine how he will rule in any given future case. We have had plenty of judges that were vetted as conservative but turned out to be liberal when put on the court. Then, you must have a majority of the Senate to get this ostensibly conservative judge's nomination confirmed. After that, a ripe case has to make its way up through the circuit courts while the court holds its ostensibly conservative majority, and hope that a majority of the court will overturn 50 years of precedent, which almost never happens, regardless of the makeup of the court. Then you'll need to get most states to enact laws that restriction abortion, and many states are decidedly pro-abortion. Then you will need to find some effective way of preventing home abortion by way of abortion drugs, which seems unfeasible given the ease at which illegal drugs can be obtained in this country.

Now, I am not saying that we should not try to do all of that, but it is a bit of a pipe dream to think that we are going to use the legal system to significantly reduce the number of abortions. Given the very slim odds of it, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to vote for the president only on this one issue.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Peace

[chrysostom]

As long as states - such as Alabama last year - continue to pass laws banning abortion - those will continue to get struck down in federal court until there are judges willing to take it up at any stage in the pipeline going up to the Supreme Court.

I think there is at least some hope that 1) if Trump is re-elected and keeps the Senate, court vacancies round the country will continue to be filled by pro-life (I hope) judges, and 2) that a more conservative Supreme court may actually entertain upholding some more restrictive recent state abortion laws.

I don't know what Breyer will do, but Thomas and Alito are kind of getting on, and if they want to retire with a vacancy that will continue their legacy they could do so with more confidence under a red administration and senate. Apparently the reason we have Kavanaugh is that Kennedy retired with the condition that only justices from a list he provided could become his replacement...and Kavanaugh was the most conservative from that list!

[cutenickname]

No one sees any danger in this man's inability to distance himself from racists?

(I am not sure if there is a point in replying to me, I am squirrely about having divisive conversations with other Christians, but this is a question I have every time I here someone posit Trump as a reasonable choice. I am particularly interested in how @Peace[another person of African descent] sees this. I might not reply to you, because I don't trust myself, I want to hear you.)

Edited October 1, 2020 by cutenickname

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

No one sees any danger in this man's inability to distance himself from racists?

(I am not sure if there is a point in replying to me, I am squirrely about having divisive conversations with other Christians, but this is a question I have every time I here someone posit Trump as a reasonable choice. I am particularly interested in how @Peace[another person of African descent] sees this. I might not reply to you, because I don't trust myself, I want to hear you.)

Don't even get me started.

Who drafted the crime bill that now has so many black men locked up?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH_2nNK9vTo

Sure, I think Trump is racist. Who says Biden isn't? Do you think these folks professed love of black people is sincere when it is election year and they need their votes?

For me, it's simply a case of the fox and the wolf when it comes down to all of that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Imf9I4ymc

 

[Ice_nine]

has trump enacted any policies that directly harm black people?  Or is just the rhetoric?

I agree the rhetoric is a problem. I was listening to Trump's rally last night. The way he was talking about refugees was very off-putting. He never actually says immigrants from certain places aren't welcome here, but he'll go ahead and talk to the crowd, claiming he's kept people from dangerous countries from coming here and sarcastically asking the crowd "I know you love Somalia right?"

And I just think of people who immigrated here from Somalia, how they would feel (it was in Minnesota which has a sizable Somali population), how the presidents words might give license to hold hatred in their hearts because of someone's national origin.

And this is coming from someone who has recently shifted to a more "America first" ethos because I'm realizing we can't just absorb all of the world's  poor and needy and we have plenty of people already here (black brown red white yellow whatever) that we need to help.

And I understand xenophobia. There's a big world out there and there are cultures that have different values. If you accept too many immigrants there will be social upheaval. How rapid and the types of changes depend not only on the number of immigrants but where they come from (you accept too many Europeans maybe our economy leans a bit socialist, maybe Islamic immigrants want Sharia law in the US, for example). I think it's naive to think that "we're really just all the same." We all have equal dignity before God but our cultures shape our values. Even that statement that we have equal dignity, you are silly to think that's a worldwide belief. But I digress.

But still the way Trump talked about them, it was underhanded but it was gross. I can see why people say he sends out dog whistles. Immigration is a subject that really needs nuance (you're not getting that from the left either, all immigrants are poor, needy and wonderful people to them, also votes).

I still think he is the lesser of two evils.
 

[cutenickname]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Don't even get me started.

Who drafted the crime bill that now has so many black men locked up?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH_2nNK9vTo

Sure, I think Trump is racist. Who says Biden isn't? Do you think these folks professed love of black people is sincere when it is election year and they need their votes?

For me, it's simply a case of the fox and the wolf when it comes down to all of that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Imf9I4ymc

 

Goodness gracious that video of Brother Malcolm!

I hear you about them both being racially problematic, I just worry about the nearer and further threat. I have to live in this country for probably less than forty years (I am in my mid thirties, smoke, and love fried things); but I have these two little brown faced humans who depend on my partner and I to 1) preach Christ crucified to them 2) to put their health and safety in this country (a place they both could conceivably still be living in 90-100 years from now) above other considerations. 3) I have prayed prayers and cried real tears over abortion, but I feel that Donald Trump is a real and immediate threat to the safety of these small people God has given me. Someone who can't say "I do not want the support of Nazis, ethnonationalists, and white supremacists" is not someone I as a descendant of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and the parent of two melanated children (one of whom is male, a little Afrolatino boy who superman, French fries, dinosaurs, and going "super fast") can support. Donald Trump is comfortable with the support of people who think my body and children's bodies (especially my son's body) are proxies for evil, disorder, and lawlessness. He terrifies me. I do not feel the same about Joe Biden. Joe Biden seems like your basic uninspiring neoliberal. Donald Trump seems like the first car on a train headed to Auschwitz. I feel like choosing life for me means choosing the man who does not have people who want me dead or deported as a core part of his base.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

has trump enacted any policies that directly harm black people?  Or is just the rhetoric?

I agree the rhetoric is a problem. I was listening to Trump's rally last night. The way he was talking about refugees was very off-putting. He never actually says immigrants from certain places aren't welcome here, but he'll go ahead and talk to the crowd, claiming he's kept people from dangerous countries from coming here and sarcastically asking the crowd "I know you love Somalia right?"

And I just think of people who immigrated here from Somalia, how they would feel (it was in Minnesota which has a sizable Somali population), how the presidents words might give license to hold hatred in their hearts because of someone's national origin.

And this is coming from someone who has recently shifted to a more "America first" ethos because I'm realizing we can't just absorb all of the world's  poor and needy and we have plenty of people already here (black brown red white yellow whatever) that we need to help.

And I understand xenophobia. There's a big world out there and there are cultures that have different values. If you accept too many immigrants there will be social upheaval. How rapid and the types of changes depend not only on the number of immigrants but where they come from (you accept too many Europeans maybe our economy leans a bit socialist, maybe Islamic immigrants want Sharia law in the US, for example). I think it's naive to think that "we're really just all the same." We all have equal dignity before God but our cultures shape our values. Even that statement that we have equal dignity, you are silly to think that's a worldwide belief. But I digress.

But still the way Trump talked about them, it was underhanded but it was gross. I can see why people say he sends out dog whistles. Immigration is a subject that really needs nuance (you're not getting that from the left either, all immigrants are poor, needy and wonderful people to them, also votes).

I still think he is the lesser of two evils.
 

That long post was a response to Peace, but I would reiterate those same statements in response to you.

[cutenickname]

6 hours ago, cutenickname said:

No one sees any danger in this man's inability to distance himself from racists?

(I am not sure if there is a point in replying to me, I am squirrely about having divisive conversations with other Christians, but this is a question I have every time I here someone posit Trump as a reasonable choice. I am particularly interested in how @Peace[another person of African descent] sees this. I might not reply to you, because I don't trust myself, I want to hear you.)

*hear. @dUSt won't let me fix my typos.

16 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

Goodness gracious that video of Brother Malcolm!

I hear you about them both being racially problematic, I just worry about the nearer and further threat. I have to live in this country for probably less than forty years (I am in my mid thirties, smoke, and love fried things); but I have these two little brown faced humans who depend on my partner and I to 1) preach Christ crucified to them 2) to put their health and safety in this country (a place they both could conceivably still be living in 90-100 years from now) above other considerations. 3) I have prayed prayers and cried real tears over abortion, but I feel that Donald Trump is a real and immediate threat to the safety of these small people God has given me. Someone who can't say "I do not want the support of Nazis, ethnonationalists, and white supremacists" is not someone I as a descendant of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and the parent of two melanated children (one of whom is male, a little Afrolatino boy who superman, French fries, dinosaurs, and going "super fast") can support. Donald Trump is comfortable with the support of people who think my body and children's bodies (especially my son's body) are proxies for evil, disorder, and lawlessness. He terrifies me. I do not feel the same about Joe Biden. Joe Biden seems like your basic uninspiring neoliberal. Donald Trump seems like the first car on a train headed to Auschwitz. I feel like choosing life for me means choosing the man who does not have people who want me dead or deported as a core part of his base.

That long post was a response to Peace, but I would reiterate those same statements in response to you.

*likes superman.

@dUSt will not allow me to edit my typos

[Peace]

7 hours ago, cutenickname said:

Goodness gracious that video of Brother Malcolm!

I hear you about them both being racially problematic, I just worry about the nearer and further threat. I have to live in this country for probably less than forty years (I am in my mid thirties, smoke, and love fried things); but I have these two little brown faced humans who depend on my partner and I to 1) preach Christ crucified to them 2) to put their health and safety in this country (a place they both could conceivably still be living in 90-100 years from now) above other considerations. 3) I have prayed prayers and cried real tears over abortion, but I feel that Donald Trump is a real and immediate threat to the safety of these small people God has given me. Someone who can't say "I do not want the support of Nazis, ethnonationalists, and white supremacists" is not someone I as a descendant of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and the parent of two melanated children (one of whom is male, a little Afrolatino boy who superman, French fries, dinosaurs, and going "super fast") can support. Donald Trump is comfortable with the support of people who think my body and children's bodies (especially my son's body) are proxies for evil, disorder, and lawlessness. He terrifies me. I do not feel the same about Joe Biden. Joe Biden seems like your basic uninspiring neoliberal. Donald Trump seems like the first car on a train headed to Auschwitz. I feel like choosing life for me means choosing the man who does not have people who want me dead or deported as a core part of his base.

That long post was a response to Peace, but I would reiterate those same statements in response to you.

Other than his wealth, Trump strikes me as the average American white person, frankly. 60% of white Americans voted for Trump in 2016. It's not like he is some anomaly that thinks so much worse than the average white person.

Now, if you have problems voting for him, I certainly understand that. Most likely, I will not be voting for him either. But yeah I think the characterizations about him being some sort of extremist when it comes to race are overblown. I think the main difference is that he states out-loud what most politicians choose to keep secret. Many other politicians "dog-whistle" to the same groups that Trump has. They are less obvious about it, but substantively I don't see a whole lot of difference.

You are a woman though, right? Not trying to be rude - I guess I'm not used to hearing prhases like "cried real tears " and "two little brown faced humans" from men.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Peace

[cutenickname]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Other than his wealth, Trump strikes me as the average American white person, frankly. 60% of white Americans voted for Trump in 2016. It's not like he is some anomaly that thinks so much worse than the average white person.

Now, if you have problems voting for him, I certainly understand that. Most likely, I will not be voting for him either. But yeah I think the characterizations about him being some sort of extremist when it comes to race are overblown. I think the main difference is that he states out-loud what most politicians choose to keep secret. Many other politicians "dog-whistle" to the same groups that Trump has. They are less obvious about it, but substantively I don't see a whole lot of difference.

You are a woman though, right? Not trying to be rude - I guess I'm not used to hearing prhases like "cried real tears " and "two little brown faced humans" from men.

You are valid. I do not agree that Trump is representative of white folks, but living through black people murdered willy nilly at tax payer expense, latino kids locked in cages, and having grown up in the hood, I understand how someone could reach that conclusion. I still can't vote for him, but I think I get why it is an option to some POC.

I am not a woman. I am a bro-ish, masculine gay dude in my thirties. You just sense my thiccness and light skinned energy. Or honestly the mothering heart I have for my Tiny Bear and Princesa.

Edited October 2, 2020 by cutenickname

[Peace]

6 hours ago, cutenickname said:

You are valid. I do not agree that Trump is representative of white folks, but living through black people murdered willy nilly at tax payer expense, latino kids locked in cages, and having grown up in the hood, I understand how someone could reach that conclusion. I still can't vote for him, but I think I get why it is an option to some POC.

I am not a woman. I am a bro-ish, masculine gay dude in my thirties. You just sense my thiccness and light skinned energy. Or honestly the mothering heart I have for my Tiny Bear and Princesa.

Yeah I don't even know what "thiccness" is and maybe I don't want to know. But that's cool. Thanks for clarifying.

[cutenickname]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Yeah I don't even know what "thiccness" is and maybe I don't want to know. But that's cool. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm a millennial. It comes out. :/

[fides' Jack]

On 9/30/2020 at 5:12 PM, cutenickname said:

An interesting thing about Westboro, they are viciously homophobic, probably the only people on the planet Trads, the LGBTQIA lobby, Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and the Catholic Church all agree are problematically homophobic, but they are and have always been anti racists. Fred Phelps, at great personal cost, was apparently something of a civil rights leader back in the day. And Fred's Savior brought him to a state of repentance regarding the abuse he heaped on q/ueer folks by the time of his death, which resulted in him (the founder!) being excommunicated from Westboro.

Racism, murderous homophobia, etc are all grave sins; but none of them makes the believer who holds these positions a non-Christian. It just makes them bad Christians, a scandal, and a poor witness for Our Lord's work of redeeming all the lost and broken things.

I unblocked you to say this. I don't remember why I blocked you. No matter, eyes forward. Heaven is the goal.

Thanks for bringing this up.  That's quite interesting.  Honestly I've never been interested enough in them to learn more; I assumed they were racist, but I'm glad if they aren't.

I'm sure you blocked me because I defended Trump against false accusations.    I'm also sure you wouldn't consider them false accusations.  We can agree to disagree; I'm actually a nice guy.

On 10/1/2020 at 7:40 AM, Peace said:

although in some respects the death penalty is more grave

That's not possible.  Abortion will always be more grave than the death penalty, in every way that matters to Catholic morality.  The Church, despite popular (incorrect) opinion, still teaches that the death penalty is sometimes allowable, and it's actually heresy to suggest otherwise.  To head off this argument, the CCC, being a book, was changed by Pope Francis.  But it didn't carry with it a statement of confirmation of Church teaching as the previous entry by Pope St. JPII did, which means all Catholics are still obliged to hold the previous entry as a higher authenticity.  Besides that, even if the Pope did include such a statement, it still wouldn't hold water, because it's a change of teaching of faith or morals on multiple points.  And besides THAT, the verbiage used wouldn't make it binding on the belief of lay Catholics.  And besides all of that, it would still take a second seat to established Tradition.

[fides' Jack]

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Other than his wealth, Trump strikes me as the average American white person, frankly. 60% of white Americans voted for Trump in 2016. It's not like he is some anomaly that thinks so much worse than the average white person.

Now, if you have problems voting for him, I certainly understand that. Most likely, I will not be voting for him either. But yeah I think the characterizations about him being some sort of extremist when it comes to race are overblown. I think the main difference is that he states out-loud what most politicians choose to keep secret. Many other politicians "dog-whistle" to the same groups that Trump has. They are less obvious about it, but substantively I don't see a whole lot of difference.

Despite some of my other comments here, I'm not a big Trump supporter.  This basically sums up my thoughts on him.

21 hours ago, cutenickname said:

Someone who can't say "I do not want the support of Nazis, ethnonationalists, and white supremacists" is not someone I as a descendant of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and the parent of two melanated children (one of whom is male, a little Afrolatino boy who superman, French fries, dinosaurs, and going "super fast") can support. Donald Trump is comfortable with the support of people who think my body and children's bodies (especially my son's body) are proxies for evil, disorder, and lawlessness. He terrifies me.

And my argument to this would be why you blocked me...  You can block me again if you wish.  My statements are meant as a brotherly correction, and certainly I feel no malice, even if they're strongly worded.

In point of fact, Trump has already denounced nazis and white supremacists more than any other conservative politician in history, but the left media acts like he hasn't, and keeps claiming that he hasn't.  It's a terrible lie.  The only reason I limit that to "conservative" politicians is because these terms for "nazi" and "white supremacists" are being used currently as a meaningless weapon to attack just about all conservatives, unfairly.  Just like the term "racist", which has been misapplied so much that it's almost entirely devoid of meaning now.  If you don't agree with the left, you are a "racist", and they will destroy your life because you don't agree with them.

Anyway, I wish you nothing but peace and happiness, and I sincerely hope you find your way back to the One, True Faith, as I'm sure you would expect from a Catholic.

[cutenickname]

18 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Anyway, I wish you nothing but peace and happiness, and I sincerely hope you find your way back to the One, True Faith, as I'm sure you would expect from a Catholic.

Any Catholic who believes the Catholic Church's claims about herself and is not actively praying that I, my children, and my *husband who are all baptized Catholics find our way back into the embrace of the Catholic Church hates us and is derelict in charity towards us; so I appreciate your concern and take it as intended [that of course is not an invitation to debate my super wicked homofascist marriage]. I am torn between doctrinal disagreements (on Papal Authority and the Moral Teachings) with the Church on the one hand and the very strong sense that even if it meant me having to not receive the sacraments I think my children would be much safer spiritually as Catholics than as Episcopalians where we are one bad priest away from accidental attendance at some kind of Goddess liturgy, so my husband and I have to decide which gnat to strain and which camel to swallow (Matt 23:24).

*(he was baptized Catholic, but raised in a variety of strange Protestantisms, some of which were quite accidentally not even Christian.)

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

That's not possible.  Abortion will always be more grave than the death penalty, in every way that matters to Catholic morality.  The Church, despite popular (incorrect) opinion, still teaches that the death penalty is sometimes allowable, and it's actually heresy to suggest otherwise.  To head off this argument, the CCC, being a book, was changed by Pope Francis.  But it didn't carry with it a statement of confirmation of Church teaching as the previous entry by Pope St. JPII did, which means all Catholics are still obliged to hold the previous entry as a higher authenticity.  Besides that, even if the Pope did include such a statement, it still wouldn't hold water, because it's a change of teaching of faith or morals on multiple points.  And besides THAT, the verbiage used wouldn't make it binding on the belief of lay Catholics.  And besides all of that, it would still take a second seat to established Tradition.

Nah. Thanks for your opinion though.

[cutenickname]

(Isn't the Catechism part of the Ordinary Magisterium? Which thing infallible or not is to be received with both internal and external submission by non theologians [my understanding is that theologians have a half inch more wiggle room here and only owe submission of the will to a doubtful and non infallible teaching]. If I am wrong here correct me.)

[fides' Jack]

17 hours ago, cutenickname said:

(Isn't the Catechism part of the Ordinary Magisterium? Which thing infallible or not is to be received with both internal and external submission by non theologians [my understanding is that theologians have a half inch more wiggle room here and only owe submission of the will to a doubtful and non infallible teaching]. If I am wrong here correct me.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a book.  The teachings in it were part of the Ordinary Magisterium when they were accompanied by the papal pronouncement defining them that way.  Any change that is not accompanied with another pronouncement do not carry the same weight.  And any change that is accompanied with another pronouncement that differ from established Church teaching on faith or morals is to be flatly rejected by the faithful.

To be a theologian it is not necessary to have any kind of degree or acknowledgement from the Church.  And having one in this age is probably more of an indication that you're not in line with the Church than otherwise.

But ordinarily, yes, I think this is correct.  Unless you have reason not to do so (which we certainly do on this matter), if a spiritual superior is teaching a matter of faith or morals that's not contrary to established Church teaching, you are obliged to believe.  The problem is that just about everything is very clearly defined at this point, so it should be super easy to confirm anything they say.  (I say 'should' because there's just as much misinformation out there as solid Catholic teaching, and if you're not solid in your understanding you will likely be led astray - and if you are solid there won't be much you'll have to look up, anyway)

Also, the idea that just because a bishop says something, or the pope adds something to the Catechism, or in an encyclical, that it is to be believed by all Catholics is a heresy, and anyone who holds to this idea will certainly not keep the faith for long in these times.

On the specific subject of the death penalty, it's pretty easy to see what the Church taught in the past.  And since it is a matter of morals that the established Church teaching is that the death penalty is acceptable in the right circumstances, then it's actually a heresy for a priest or bishop to declare otherwise (i.e. that it's never ok).

All that being said, I should probably learn from you and keep my silence more.  Clearly I wrote too much here...  There isn't much I would want to remove, though...

1 minute ago, fides' Jack said:

(I say 'should' because there's just as much misinformation out there as solid Catholic teaching, and if you're not solid in your understanding you will likely be led astray - and if you are solid there won't be much you'll have to look up, anyway)

Just to head off an argument here, I'm not saying that if you're solid you already know everything or even a significant portion of the deposit of faith.  I'm saying that since many priests and bishops are not solid, it's pretty easy to see when they're wrong, because they're not going to delve too deeply into authentic Church teaching.

18 hours ago, Peace said:

Nah. Thanks for your opinion though.

It's only my opinion because that's the position of the Church.  Otherwise my opinion would be different.