Hi, Pnewton,
I am not asking you to concede anything, especially of a, ‘…stereotypical dichotomy…’ type nature. I am requesting you to stop complaining about my analogies and actually tell me of even partial accomplishments made by the distracted approach being utilized by the USCCB. I might also ask you to actually use my quote correctly rather then misapply what I said. I never said eliminate the poor or sin, and you can see that from what you copied and pasted. .
I really have no idea on what ‘your way’ actually is. I have asked for specifics and you circumnavigate with generalizations, I tell you why a continued failure to address root causes leads nowhere and you essentially agree by providing no direction, I identified that we can not promote the papal endorsed positions concerning the scanctity of life if we elect politicians who promote abortion, and you lament that this is ‘politicizing’ the Faith. I submit the ‘lens’ I am using (I’m willing to work with your metaphor) is a realistic view and appreciation of the US at this time, and a clear understanding of that we are responsible for putting our Faith into action.
Here is an analogy: If Catholics in the early Roman Empire could have voted for their Roman Emperor - do you think that they would have voted for Severius or Diocletian or Nero because of their good foreign policies or architectural acheivements, or bread and circus approach to government (maybe the great-grandfather of entitlement programs!
) - or against them because they despised the scantity of human life? Or maybe not voted at all because they chose not to fight evil like this?
We as a nation can not lament the amount of violence we are experiencing, while voting for those who actively promote violence through legislation - this just does not make sense to me. It makes even less sense that thinking it is OK not to have to vote against evil is somehow standing on the side of Good. Now, if saying one thing but doing something else within the (political) context I have provide, makes sense to you - then please, explain this to me.
We may have some confusion here - if there are multiple evils (and there really are) how then are we to establish a hierarchy for which one we are to address first? I submit we listen to the popes who have uniformly condemned abortion as the number one evil - and here is a link that supports this position:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3362 My invitation to you is to provide any link that treats gun ownership or increased regulations on guns in a similar way. To the best of my knowledge, no such document exists - but, here is your chance to provide me with a correction.
In my opinion, the bishops remaining focused on ‘responsible restrictions’ on gun ownership is simplistic and profoundly distracting. Again, those who kill others - especially many others by using firearms - are profoundly wrong and have done evil. And, while there are examples of individuals who used firearms (for mass murder) without a proper gun license - there are also examples of lawful owners misusing firearms to kill innocent people. More regulations will really not help - we really do have enough regulations on firearms that if they were only followed. Maybe the USCCB could just write an letter asking the government to simply do a better job of enforcement of the laws we already have - and then move on to the root cause.
The issue really is the person behind the firearm - not the weapon itself - and here is where I think the Bishops are after another ‘red herring’. If the person behind the gun does not respect the scantity of life, then the focus of the bishops on regulations is really misplaced. The ‘focus’ of the bishops for increased regulatory intervention is a political response’ - maybe keeping the idea that Church leaders can have a political response but focus on root causes of evil would be a better approach.
God bless
That is not my way, and I never said it was. The leaf thing is your analogy. I propose the this is still a false dichotomy. There is a need to address both the specifics as they apply to specific situation and underlying root causes. One does not simply ignore abortion to teach on the sin that lies under the sin of abortion, selfishness, greed, sexual immorality. One teaches both. Bishops need to be both pastoral and theological. Some people are only reached on the simple levels, yet there is still a need to work to change the culture that makes sin more prevalent.
I think if this was an unrealistic goal for Jesus, who said we would always have the poor, it is unrealistic to think that all sin will cease.
It seems these statements are always viewed through a political lens. This is the downside of taking everything in one lump and ignoring specifics. Even the Church is viewed as one of two possible political viewpoints. If you oppose abortion, you must also oppose gun control and immigration reform, and support the death penalty. I will never concede this stereotypical dichotomy. It has led to people who put politics ahead of their faith on both the left and on the right.
