Bishop says Notre Dame is wrong to honor Joe Biden

[pnewton]

But if the law stood up for the reality of what is happening, how would a mother (and father) be ignorant to realize that the baby is a human life?

The law is based not on reality, as defined as what is true whether it is knowable or not, but that part of reality that can be known (outside of faith). The real question of abortion, though it is often ignored, is when does human life become human life. The Church teaches the reality, but this is not known outside faith. I would argue that not knowing when a human life becomes a person is the strongest argument** against** abortion. If we do not know if our action will kill another human being (or not), then we cannot act. We are like a hunter that sees something that looks something like a person and something like a deer. The position of the pro-abortion crowd is we should have the choice to shoot, as we do not know if we are going to kill a person or not. So it is possible to incorporate into law reckless actions done in ignorance, without acknowledging any reality, especially if the reality involves religious faith, as does the doctrine that life begins at conception.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not honoring Biden with a Catholic award.

Though he personally doesn’t agree with choosing to abort babies, he believes the law to aid and allow it is a just law. He must be outspoken that the law is unjust and intrinsically evil, if we are to honor him with a Catholic award.

The award is for what he did for the Catholic Church, not what he didn’t do as a legislator.

Biden has strongly supported the Catholic Church and other charities that the Church is involved in.

Jim

 

[KEP1983]

There is no member of Congress who will write such a law that punishes a woman who obtains an abortion, nor the doctor who performs it.

There are virtually no members of Congress who would even support such a law.

This is the reason why in 40 years since Roe V Wade, no law has been written, as well as the fact that they now the SCOTUS would throw it out just as they did in 73.

There is no member of Congress that would dare strip the southerners of their right to hold slaves. The agricultural economy of the south depends upon it, as does our importing of food from the south. Even if we personally oppose it, how could such a law be enforced? Should we really round up and jail all the slave owners who produce our food and contribute to the economy? Should we go to war with the Moors and Barbars who sell the slaves to the southerners? Such laws are unpractical and unfeasible.

Yeah, those type of arguments have been used before.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There is no member of Congress that would dare strip the southerners of their right to hold slaves. .

Actually there were many members of Congress who opposed slavery.

Heck, we had a civil war over it.

Jim

 

[KEP1983]

Actually there were many members of Congress who opposed slavery.

Heck, we had a civil war over it.

Jim

Yeah, it only took a few centuries for that point to be reached. The argument that it was unfeasible or unrealistic was used back then too.

And as for how such a law would be implemented seems pretty easy to me. You seem to assume that both parties involved in a crime would receive equal punishment. That’s obviously false. The pimp and the prostitute have different punishment, as does the drug kingpin vs the drug addict. The prostitute or addict may be given a light sentence with rehab while the drug kingpin or pimp are given harsh jailtime.

 

[Trader]

By definition, Catholics claim that Muslims and Jews do not have the fullness of truth or morality.

This is true, but human reason alone shows the wisdom of the simple statement, you shall not murder. It is proven by modern science that there is a new and unique being present at conception. The only argument is over whether some humans can kill other humans without ripping apart the natural good of a society. The evidence seems overwhelming to me.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yeah, it only took a few centuries for that point to be reached. The argument that it was unfeasible or unrealistic was used back then too.

And as for how such a law would be implemented seems pretty easy to me. You seem to assume that both parties involved in a crime would receive equal punishment. That’s obviously false. The pimp and the prostitute have different punishment, as does the drug kingpin vs the drug addict. The prostitute or addict may be given a light sentence with rehab while the drug kingpin or pimp are given harsh jailtime.

Well. the USA is only two centuries old and there were plenty of founding fathers who opposed slavery. John Adams and his wife were two.

But getting slavery outlawed took a civil war.

I hope you’re not suggesting a civil war to get abortion outlawed ?

Jim

 

[KEP1983]

Well. the USA is only two centuries old and there were plenty of founding fathers who opposed slavery. John Adams and his wife were two.

But getting slavery outlawed took a civil war.

I hope you’re not suggesting a civil war to get abortion outlawed ?

Jim

That’s a little disingenuous. You state that as if slavery wasn’t around very long before it was fought against. Obviously slavery predated the creation of the USA by centuries. And no, it’s not like a huge majority of people rejected it from the beginning. It took a long time for people to change their minds.

People used the same argument that you use-- that changing it isn’t practically feasible, it will hurt the economy, hurt agriculture, etc.

As far as fighting a civil war, the church tells us that in public issues like this, where the law is unjust, we are to use all non-violent means we can before resorting to any sort of violent uprising.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

KEP1983;

That’s a little disingenuous. You state that as if slavery wasn’t around very long before it was fought against. Obviously slavery predated the creation of the USA by centuries. And no, it’s not like a huge majority of people rejected it from the beginning. It took a long time for people to change their minds.

Slavery predated the USA, but most people opposed it, being it was only the powerful and wealthy who owned slaves. The Church prohibited slavery long before the USA.

People used the same argument that you use-- that changing it isn’t practically feasible, it will hurt the economy, hurt agriculture, etc.

I’m not using the same argument. I’m saying that the majority of Americans do not want to ban all abortions and no one in congress will attempt to write a law banning it. Most Americans support regulations on late term abortions where the life of the mother is at stake, but in the pre-viable days of a pregnancy, the majority want the woman to make the decision for herself. Just to be clear, I don’t support this, but merely pointing out the political reality of our world today.

As far as fighting a civil war, the church tells us that in public issues like this, where the law is unjust, we are to use all non-violent means we can before resorting to any sort of violent uprising.

The Church opposes the use of violence against abortion providers and you can be sure, she opposes it against members of Congress.

Jim

 

[rcwitness]

The award is for what he did for the Catholic Church, not what he didn’t do as a legislator.

Biden has strongly supported the Catholic Church and other charities that the Church is involved in.

Jim

I don’t think you are acknowledging the severity and moral evil which abortion is. Joe is in an office that can reach the ears of many. I’m not suggesting he break the law, and I know he may not be able to change what the SCOTUS decided. But as a Catholic, he should be strongly opposed to the legalization of abortion and same sex marriage.

He, as a Catholic is being awarded, not his ability or lack of to control what becomes law. But what his efforts and stance have been.

 

[KEP1983]

KEP1983;

Slavery predated the USA, but most people opposed it, being it was only the powerful and wealthy who owned slaves. The Church prohibited slavery long before the USA.

The USA was created by Protestants, not Catholics. What Pope Eugene IV decreed was irrelevant to the USA.

As far as asserting that most Americans have always opposed slavery… I’m afraid that’s looking at history through rose colored glasses.

I’m not using the same argument. I’m saying that the majority of Americans do not want to ban all abortions and no one in congress will attempt to write a law banning it. Most Americans support regulations on late term abortions where the life of the mother is at stake, but in the pre-viable days of a pregnancy, the majority want the woman to make the decision for herself. Just to be clear, I don’t support this, but merely pointing out the political reality of our world today.

The political reality in 1725 would have said slavery is here to stay. “The laws can’t be changed. It’ll destroy our economy. The price of food will be through the roof.” But minds and laws can be changed. You imply that we can’t make abortion illegal because it isn’t feasible, can’t realistically prosecute the woman and the doctor, etc. The same types of arguments were used to sustain slavery. There’s no reason to believe those objections will be correct in this case either.

The Church opposes the use of violence against abortion providers and you can be sure, she opposes it against members of Congress.

Jim

Sorry, but that’s not entirely true. The church allows for violent revolutions against governments if certain requirements are met.

jimmyakin.com/legitimate-rebellion-against-unjust-rule

Catholic Catechism paragraph 2243: "Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”

So if all those conditions are met then the use of violence is legitimate.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don’t think you are acknowledging the severity and moral evil which abortion is. Joe is in an office that can reach the ears of many. I’m not suggesting he break the law, and I know he may not be able to change what the SCOTUS decided. But as a Catholic, he should be strongly opposed to the legalization of abortion and same sex marriage.

He, as a Catholic is being awarded, not his ability or lack of to control what becomes law. But what his efforts and stance have been.

I understand the severity of abortion, but Biden has not directly supported abortion, as far as I know.

He has said he opposes abortion, but can not force his beliefs on others.

OK, flawed logic, but it doesn’t make him an evil person.

Jim

 

[pnewton]

Catholic Catechism paragraph 2243: "Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”.

I know we have the first of these, but I see no way we will ever meet the other four criteria.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

KEP1983;

The USA was created by Protestants, not Catholics. What Pope Eugene IV decreed was irrelevant to the USA.

There were parts of the New World under control of the French and Spanish, both Catholic nations.

FYI, England was the major nation and they outlawed slavery before the US Civil War.

As far as asserting that most Americans have always opposed slavery… I’m afraid that’s looking at history through rose colored glasses.

The majority did in fact oppose slavery, but they were the silent majority as the wealthy and powerful owned slaves, not the average colonists.

Even during the Civil War, there were those in the South who refused to fight for the Confederacy, because it was to protect slavery. In fact, those who owned 10 or more slaves, were exempt from conscription into the Confederate military. Read “The State of Jackson.” if you don’t believe me.

The political reality in 1725 would have said slavery is here to stay. “The laws can’t be changed. It’ll destroy our economy. The price of food will be through the roof.” But minds and laws can be changed.

The political reality is that where England had outlawed slavery in 1833 had there been no American Revolution, the colonies would’ve eventually had to stop the practice.

You imply that we can’t make abortion illegal because it isn’t feasible, can’t realistically prosecute the woman and the doctor, etc. The same types of arguments were used to sustain slavery. There’s no reason to believe those objections will be correct in this case either.

The arguments are different because there is a conflict as to whether an embryo is a person or not, where in today’s world. there is no argument that a black person is a person.

Sorry, but that’s not entirely true. The church allows for violent revolutions against governments if certain requirements are met.

jimmyakin.com/legitimate-rebellion-against-unjust-rule

Catholic Catechism paragraph 2243: "Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”

So if all those conditions are met then the use of violence is legitimate.

And aside from number 1, none of the conditions exist in the USA to justify violence.
We are not oppressed and still have the freedom to use of the ballot to vote for change.

The Bishops have condemn the use of violence against abortionists and they have also gone further by telling the pro-life activists to tone down their rhetoric which can inspire violence.

If you’re advocating the use of violence against pro-abortion elected officials, I’d be careful because the FBI may be giving you a visit.

Jim

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun responds in RED

KEP1983;

There were parts of the New World under control of the French and Spanish, both Catholic nations.

FYI, England was the major nation and they outlawed slavery before the US Civil War.

As did many of the Northern Colonies even before the REVOLUTIONARY War (i.e. the importation of slaves).

The majority did in fact oppose slavery, but they were the silent majority as the wealthy and powerful owned slaves, not the average colonists. True IMO. In some places there was even the knotty problem of how a freed slave would fend for himself (thinking here of slaveowners who had inherited the mess … but disliked the system). A freed slave could leave. But what could he/she become? In the same area … a sharecropper? Rather a small benefit … but a good step. In the north some became more. Out west … not much history to say what happened there.

Even during the Civil War, there were those in the South who refused to fight for the Confederacy, because it was to protect slavery. In fact, those who owned 10 or more slaves, were exempt from conscription into the Confederate military. Read “The State of Jackson.” if you don’t believe me.

Thought here of a line from the song “As We Go Marching Through Georgia!” a Union song.

Yes and *there were Union men **who wept with joyful tears,
When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years;
Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers,
While we were marching through Georgia.

(If true … there were those who never wanted secession but were taken along for the ride)

The political reality is that where England had outlawed slavery in 1833 had there been no American Revolution, the colonies would’ve eventually had to stop the practice.

The arguments are different because there is a conflict as to whether an embryo is a person or not, where in today’s world. there is no argument that a black person is a person.

And aside from number 1, none of the conditions exist in the USA to justify violence.
We are not oppressed and still have the freedom to use of the ballot to vote for change.

The Bishops have condemn the use of violence against abortionists and they have also gone further by telling the pro-life activists to tone down their rhetoric which can inspire violence.

If you’re advocating the use of violence against pro-abortion elected officials, I’d be careful because the FBI may be giving you a visit.

Jim

 

[SuperLuigi]

Abortion is what the Church teaches, an intrinsic moral evil.

However, its not murder by definition and not punishable as murder is.

Trying to get a law banning abortion making it equal to murder, will never happen.

Jim

Well, removing the legalization of abortion means it doesn’t become publicly available or legally licensed in the private sector.

So the incentive of having an abortion decreases dramatically.

As far as punishment for someone involved in abortion and equating it to murder, I don’t know what the Church would say about that, but I would be more interested in helping or rehabilitating women in such cases than throwing them in jail just for punishment’s sake.

The idea behind ending the legalization of abortion is about preserving innocent life, not punishing people just as a law and order motive.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand the severity of abortion, but Biden has not directly supported abortion, as far as I know.

He has said he opposes abortion, but can not force his beliefs on others.

OK, flawed logic, but it doesn’t make him an evil person.

Jim

Biden is not a simpleton. He knows his party not only actively supports abortion on demand and partial birth abortion, he voted for funding it.

Give him credit for being smarter than simply having flawed logic. His flaw is moral, not intellectual, and it’s profound.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Biden is not a simpleton. He knows his party not only actively supports abortion on demand and partial birth abortion, he voted for funding it.

Give him credit for being smarter than simply having flawed logic. His flaw is moral, not intellectual, and it’s profound.

Please show the piece of legislation where Biden voted to fund abortion.

Jim

 

[zz912]

The award is for what he did for the Catholic Church, not what he didn’t do as a legislator.

Biden has strongly supported the Catholic Church and other charities that the Church is involved in.

Jim

Where is the evidence of this? Biden is notoriously stingy in his personal charity.

And someone who openly defies Church teaching is not supporting the Church.

 

[zz912]

I understand the severity of abortion, but Biden has not directly supported abortion, as far as I know.

He has said he opposes abortion, but can not force his beliefs on others.

OK, flawed logic, but it doesn’t make him an evil person.

Jim

Openly defying Church teaching does in fact make you an evil person.