Of course I haven’t read the cases. The Supreme Court also thinks a fetus is part of a woman’s body and therefore not deserving of protection because of a right of privacy that isn’t in the Constitution. They get things wrong all the time.
No, one can always find attorneys. I claim my assessment of the state of the law is accurate.
Exactly - he said, she said. I will stand by my assessment.
Pope Leo XIII wrote this because at the the time the Reformation communities in the United States were tolerant of the Modernist movement and were also anti-Catholic. The average Catholic in the USA at the time was poor, uneducated, usually an immigrant, while the average Protestant was wealthy, well educated and had usually been here for several generations. The Catholic was an easy target for proselytism. He did not have the tools to defend his faith, nor the political influence. We must remember that there were still laws in certain states that tolerated discrimination against Catholics and Jews.
It would not be the first or the last time that the Church excommunicated a Head of State. Dr. Edward Peters does not deny that a bishop can excommunicate a President (in our case). He is addressing a point of canon law. The bishop of the diocese in which the President has his permanent residence can excommunicate him. But the decree of excommunication must be sent to the Holy See for confirmation. That’s where the pope enters into the picture.
The Pope doesn’t dictate US policy, so it isn’t a problem.
We’re not talking about what the Pope wants. We’re talking about morality. Morality has no national borders. What is moral is moral and what is immoral is immoral.
Actually, no one said anything like that. At the time you mention (when Catholics and priests owned slaves) if a Catholic politician were asked if slavery was legal he was obliged to answer in the affirmative. No more, no less.
If a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or other politician knows that something is immoral, regardless of what others say, he has a duty to speak and vote accordingly. I can’t believe that something is immoral and support it because someone else wants me to do so. Moral people don’t function that way. Moral people are consistent.
Calling a spade a spade is not immoral. If a Catholic public official does not like a valid law which the Church opposes, the official should state that the law is valid. The chief judge of the circuit court assigns judges who perform marriages. If the chief judge is Catholic, he or she has no right to refuse to perform this job function.
If a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or other politician knows that something is immoral, regardless of what others say, he has a duty to speak and vote accordingly. I can’t believe that something is immoral and support it because someone else wants me to do so. Moral people don’t function that way. Moral people are consistent.
I’ll give you an example, I used to run a school for another faith group, not Catholic. They had a policy that allowed the distribution of condoms. When I took over the school I stopped it. I was asked why. I said that I had stopped it, because it was immoral. There was resistance and many people who were upset. My response was simple. “If you want me to run your school, you cannot ask me to support something that is immoral. Take my services or I’m out of here.” They kept my services for seven years. They didn’t like it; but they made the choice. They felt that it was a greater benefit to them to yield on that point, than lose my services.
We can be faithful to the truth, if we’re willing to take the consequences.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
If the Universal Church established by Jesus Christ our God opposes a law on purely moral grounds, then the law is not valid. There is no such thing as Immoral Validity.
So you are ok with it as long as a personal conviction, based on their religion, is not the reason? Should a politician be required to check their conscious, formed by their religion, at the door?
So as long as they give lip service like that, you are ok with them using their religion (in this case Catholic teaching) as the basis for their decisions? It seems to me that your position on this is inconsistent.
This discussion is about legislatorswho make laws, not judges who follow laws. If a Catholic judge cannot rule according to the law, they shouldn’t be judges.
Actually, I did not say that. I am fine with it if it is a personal conviction, influenced by a person’s religion.
Then, perhaps we disagree.
This certainly is a wide-ranging discussion. I do agree with your last sentence, though. Which is why an activist judge should not be seated in order for some ‘Blaine amendment’ to be struck down. Said amendments bar funding to religious schools.
I feel you are simply playing word games. Admitting something is legal is not the same as saying something is immoral and that we should stop the act. For example, a Priest today can admit abortion is legal, and then turn around and say abortion is immoral and gravely sinful and that we must work to end that act. That Priest can see both sides, and he cannot divorce himself from the truth that abortion is immoral. Lay Catholics are the same, they should never divorce themselves from truth.
Well, perhaps I just misunderstood your post. You said “I would not want a Catholic politician to vote against it for the reason that he or she believes it violates Catholic precepts.” Perhaps you can re-word that.
Would an “activist judge” be one who would overturn Roe-v-Wade, for example?