The current Pope and well as his predecessors, disagree with you.
“Us”? Who’s “us”? Do you represent a visible or invisible group, such as some self-appointed tribunal believing yourself to be morally superior to me, or to anyone else you judge less holy, less “Catholic,” less “authentic” than yourself? Thankfully, God is my judge, not you.
Woops!
I thought the first one meant that only abortion should be legal. I meant to click the first one then…clicked the second by accidentAs for the last paragraph in your post. That was totally uncalled for and quite uncharitable. You also make some astonishing arrogant assumptions about which you have absolutely no proof. It was also calumnious. And you claim to go to daily Mass?
I respect your position, Nino. The only problem with it is that convicted criminals are often later discovered, through re-examined evidence, to have been innocent. Despite increasingly sophisticated forensic technology, it continues to happen virtually every week. Many people have been executed by the state, later to have been discovered not only innocent of that crime, but having lived a blameless life. This is why The Innocence Project continues to flourish, and why not only God rejoices when the truly innocent are freed, but many moral atheists and believers of many religions, including faithful Catholics, similarly rejoice. The key factor in any moral position is always consistency. If one states certain terms/principles for upholding one set of religious or moral beliefs, that foundation must be carried through to the same set or subset of situations, in order to have validity.
Perhaps I should have said “this thinking exactly”. I’m not lumping you in with anyone, you have done that yourself.
No one has said anything of the sort.
You have no basis for such a judgment, except sheer fantasy and inappropriate intrusion into private matters. It’s astounding how many posters on CAF are so curious about the state of others’ morality/sinfulness, and what is more astounding – how they believe they have have any authority whatsoever to judge the soul of a single other person. Such arrogance is a sure sign that one is not at all in a position to judge the soul of one’s neighbor. I’m speaking generally, not just with regard to this thread.
Ouch.
It appears you are the only one doing any judging, attacking or insulting. You have utterly and completely misconstrued every post you have responded to and actually claimed that people were saying exactly the opposite of what they had written. You have also improperly stated Church teachings. Beyond this you have exaggerated everything written and tried to turn a simple discussion into a catastrophic attack on you. The difficulties you seem to be expressing do not appear to be coming from any source outside of yourself.
I believe such presumptions are premature.
The Church is not opposed to the death penalty.I am pro-life on both points: death penalty and abortion as the Church is.
I beleive that abortion is murder and the girl and man should be put in jail fo rsecond degree murder. And the two or more times abortion should be procucuted for first degree murder, just my opioion. I am against the death penalty
That’s a big “if”, but if its true, then maybe…I’m confused, I didn’t know that Roe vs Wade caused abortions, only paid for them. Can we actually stop a woman1 from having an abortion if she really wants one. How do you do that? Long before Roe Vs Wade, the wealthy had their abortions at a health spa, some here in America. Are we really talking about the first time woman having an abortion because she hates having a kid. Do you really think with out Roe vs Wade the number of abortions in America will deminish? I was just wondering, I don’t know anyone who wanted an abortion or had one, just the retoric seems out of place, shouldn’t we pray for the conversion of the woman having an aboution and the plitician who wants partial birth and stem cell research.I am totally and entirely against abortion. I am also against embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia.
I agree with the CCC on the death penalty: that while the state is permitted to use it when necessary, the times when it is “necessary” here in America, in modern times, are VERY limited if non-existent.
However, I also note, like an earlier poster did, that some people continue to commit crimes within the prison or direct outside crimes from within prison walls. If there is no other way to keep these persons isolated and keep guards, other inmates, and society safe, this might be one of those limited times in which the death penalty may need to be an option.
I am (in general) anti-war, anti-poverty, pro works-of-mercy, etc. as others have stated above. But I also believe strongly in that model more recently described (replacing the seamless garment theory) - that of a house. There are some issues which are FOUNDATIONAL. Others, when built upon it, make the house strong. But if the foundation is absent or weak, the house will crumble. A house, to be complete, needs everything, including and ESPECIALLY the foundation. A politician who shows himself or herself asserting that abortion ought to be legal… or that ESC research ought to be legal… or that euthanasia/physician assisted suicide ought to be legal… is weakening/destroying the foundation - and without a foundation NO house will stand.
And on many of the other issues (clothing and feeding the poor, sanitary water, health care, immigration, education, etc.), we are permitted to disagree on how the end goal is met. Just as we are permitted to disagree with the Holy Father regarding the death penalty (note - I do NOT) or disagree on those rare circumstances in which the death penalty may be used - or disagree on whether the reasons for a particular war are just. But we may NOT disagree on whether abortion ought to be legal. While the others are prudential decisions, the issue of abortion is not.
I smell a sock puppet.