A
Abrosz
Guest
I misspoke. Instead of the word “best” I wrote “only”. My mistake.
- Status
A
Abrosz
Guest
Apart from the fact that NO ONE has actual knowledge about this, your approach is reasonable.
So the next question is: why not concentrate on eliminating the “greater” sin, and compromise on the issue of the “lesser” one. I know that the ideal solution would be to eliminate BOTH, but we do not live in a perfect world.
You cannot have your cake and eat it, too - as the old saying goes.
A
AlNg
Guest
At one time capital punishment was admissible. Now capital punishment is inadmissible because, as far as I can make out, something in society has changed. At the present time artificial birth control is inadmissible, but (I am only making a guess here) can an argument be made at some future date that artificial birth control will be admissible because the consequences of overpopulation have become more serious, i.e., lack of clean water, climate change, air pollution, overcrowding, depletion of lobster and fish supplies, not enough toilet paper, etc., etc.,
2
27lw
Guest
Hmm. Why is it that abortion on demand was needed, even after the pill became widely available?
2
27lw
Guest
Yes, but few people have the time to answer your combative questions. Maybe you would consider reading up on things before you start arguing?27lw:
I misspoke. Instead of the word “best” I wrote “only”. My mistake.
T
TMC
Guest
I think it is more complicated than that. The underlying teaching is that the unjustified taking of human life is inherently immoral and unallowed. That remains, of course, but the understanding of whether the death penalty is (or can be) justification for taking a life has changed. That is not just because of a change in society–I think that the Catholic understanding of the issue has also grown.
A
Abrosz
Guest
I hope I read you correctly. The “admissibility” refers to the Catholic approach? If so, then the Catholic view is influenced / determined by the current society. Which would make sense, of course. But it is surprising nevertheless.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
At least with JPII, the determining factor was the need for the death penalty for protection of society from killers. He mentioned it as a condition for rejecting the penalty. I think he surely believed it POSSIBLE for modern societies to protect society without the death penalty, but expected them to provide sufficient supermax-type incarceration to prevent in-prison killings and killings ordered from prison to be carried out on the outside.
So, while I don’t know that the view the the Church has changed concerning its admissibility as such, I think its view of the underlying capacities of modern societies has changed.
T
TMC
Guest
He mentioned it. I don’t agree that it is the determining factor.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I already did, but you ignored it. And I’m sure you’re aware of it anyway.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t see any other meaning in this. Perhaps you can explain why you think there is one. Here’s Pope JPII:
" “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
His whole emphasis is on defending human lives against the aggressor. I don’t see anything more to this. Do you?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I know you’re aware of it, but for the benefit of others who might not know about it, even Abp McElroy condemned the Democrat promotion of abortion. Here’s Abp McElroy:
“At one time there was bipartisan support for erecting policies that made abortion rare. Now that commitment has been eviscerated in the Democratic Party in a capitulation to notions of privacy that simply block out the human identity and rights of unborn children. Even in an age when sonograms testify with the eloquence of truth and life itself that children in the womb are genuinely our brothers and sisters, our daughters and sons, the annihilation of their humanity in perception and in fact continues. Catholic social teaching has consistently demanded that there be legal protections for the unborn, as they are the most vulnerable and victimized of humanity…”
A
Abrosz
Guest
What is “combating” about asking which one of two sins is the more serious one, and what should be done about it - knowing full well that you cannot eliminate both?
2
27lw
Guest
This post. This is the one full of combative questions that no one has time to answer. It might be better if you just read up on these things.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have seen no evidence that a “strong social safety net” (for whom? Mothers? Babies? Both? Others?) makes any difference in abortion rates. But you can provide it if you have it.
Making it legal is endorsing it. If sexual relations with a child of five was made legal, would the society be less corrupt by that act or more so? The answer is self-evident. A society that embraces abortion in its laws is corrupt and murderous. It might not make a difference in other ways, but approximately 50% of the public has now been corrupted into supporting it. Some, like Joe Biden, want taxpayers to pay for it, and wants to make objecting religious organizations like the Little Sisters, complicit in it.
It’s corrupt. It has led to further corruption like “partial birth abortion” and direct killing of newborns. And that won’t be the end of it, as we have seen in the Netherlands (and this country, for that matter) where it has extended to killing “defective” children.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Couldn’t agree more.
P
pnewton
Guest
Repeating it does not make it so.
Again, your opinion, as you keep saying things the Church does not say, does not equate to truth. The USCCCB clearly delineates the difference between voting for the candidate despite the stance on abortion and voting for them because of that stance. You, no one, has the right to judge other Catholics with some personal standard or bar that is different than the Church uses. Again, as it keeps getting superseded:
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...ng-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-title
From the article:
When we do have referendums on a ballot, then absolutes are much easier. With people, prudence is needed, or else no one would vote for either major party, if there was a third party with a better position.
Voting for candidates is harder than voting on issues. They are not equal. Repeating over and over that it is the same thing does not make them equal.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Except that the Popes have declared that there must be a “proportionate” reason to support an abortion supporting politician. Nobody has come up with a “proportionate” reason to endorse killing a million children/year. If you have one, let’s hear it.
It’s not “My” opinion. In addition to the Popes, the U.S. bishops have said abortion is the preeminent issue in this election. Why do you ignore this?
Where does the Church teach that individuals have the moral right to act against Church teaching if our own opinion differs with it? That’s what Dems are doing.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You’re neglecting to mention that the “Introductory Letter” with the 2015 publication has been changed. The 2020 Letter adds, among other things:
"The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life
itself,4
because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of
lives destroyed. "
I realize Democrats have difficulty with Church teaching because their party endorses abortion. But it just can’t be denied that the Church does not posit a single “proportionate” evil to abortion which would allow a Catholic to support it.
It isn’t at all when you know what the candidates stand for when it comes to the “issues”. When it comes to the “issue” of killing a million children per year, the democrat candidates are for it. The Republican candidates are against it. Look at the NARAL and the NRL statistics on the parties and their members. Democrats are almost entirely pro-abortion. Repubs are almost entirely prolife.
- Status