J
janechantal
Guest
what is it with you and Solcal? give it up…you are all over the place with your discussion. Surely we have finished with the Catholics can be pro-choice subject!!!
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That seems fair, after all, you keep professing to know everyone else’s heart and mind and the largest obstacles to discourse so far seem to be reading and comprehension on your part.
We never get to discourse because we keep having to explain that you are falsely assigning things to others that they have not said
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
If by pro-choice, you mean in favor of abortion. ***No, Catholics may not be pro-choice. ***
:tsktsk:
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
:tsktsk:
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
How can pro-choice not be in favor of abortion?
If I considered it my neighbor’s “choice” to beat his wife, and supported legislation to protect his “right” to do that, would I not be in favor of wife-beating?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I state it this way because some alleged sophisticates parse words trying to change the meaning of pro-choice. (commonly called spin) I see by your question, you agree with what the term “pro choice” commonly means to those of us who are “pro life.” We are in the same club here.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
S
SoCalRC
Guest
How does this contrast my interpretation of the Vatican’s position? “Cannot vote” seems pretty clear.
Really? That seems like quite a stretch. The same document notes that it is never licit for Catholics to vote in support of attacks on human life. The Doctrinal Note from Rome states that it is never licit to vote in support of attacks on human life. And Evangelium Vitae specifically states that it is a moral imperitive for all Catholics not to vote in support of attacks on human life. Are you saying that the Bishops are approving pro choice voting? If so, what foundation in Rome’s position, or standing Catholic Dogma would support that?
The quote says only that we may feel compelled to compromise on some teachings for other grave moral reasons. I have never disputed that, I merely quoted Rome’s written position on what sort compromises are NOT permitted under such a principle.
Read carefully, it says “all candidates”, not ‘all candidates with a chance of winning’. For most of us, there are a slew of 3rd party candidates on the ballot, many of us can even write in fellow citizens.
The situation cited may arise, but you endorse compromise not because legitimate, non intrinsic evil supporting candidates are not availalbe, but because you perceive compromise with evil for the sake of political victory will be a path to good. That is, you are putting your faith in the works of men, not God.
You also seem to be missusing ‘extraordinary’. The quote starts by noting it is a “dilemna”. Not voting would be “extraordinary” because the document states earlier that expressing our faith in the public arena is a duty. But, in the case of having to support intrinsic evil, forsaking that duty may be called for.
You are attempting to use reductive reasoning. The Princes have no power except from the Pope. Rome, and the Vicar of Christ are the ultimate authority. You need to show me how Rome’s document can be reconciled to your interpretation of the Bishops, otherwise it is your interpretation of the Bishops, not my interpretation of Rome, that is, by default, suspect by Catholic Dogma.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Can you provide examples to support of either of these assertions? Most of my posts in most of these threads have always noted that we are all sinners, all making compromises, and that we should be careful making harsh judgments of others.
You have repeatedly called me a “pro abortionist”, though I have never experessed anything but an absolute belief that abortion is a grave evil.
Bamarider has stated that I must not love my country because, gasp I don’t like structural deficits, wasting blood and treasure, or torture.
We don’t have ‘discourse’ because you are absolutely certain you are correct. Once facts and reason become arguments of convenience, discourse is impossible.
Case in point, Bamarider has already boasted that he does not read before replying. Even the pretense of discourse is foresaken. This is the norm in talk radio, but calling it “discourse” does not make it so.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Not true. I think your agenda is wrong, but I don’t feel that makes you love your country less. You’ll have to show some evidence of that assertion.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
How many times have you snidely suggested I am a protestant?
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What part of “snidely suggested” did you not understand?
Well, that certainly adds to his credibility.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I am not sure that I can agree with you. I, myself, cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. However, I can at least envision how some Catholics may sincerely believe that secular law is utterly ineffectual in addressing abortion.
After all, the Church tried an absolute ban, with even a possible sentence of death, for about three years, reportedly to try to control the rampant prostitution in Rome. It was, by all accounts, a failure, and was rescinded. Instead of stopping abortions, it simply stopped people from coming to confession.
The Pope has spoken on the matter, and we are compelled to listen and obey with proper reverence. But we are also compelled to follow the absolute certainty of our own moral conscience. If a Catholic were convinced that the increased maternal deaths from abortion prohibition are an avoidable attack on human life, I would believe that Catholic is incorrect, but I could not bring myself to argue that my position is unerringly rightous and his/her was not.
Think about it, if a Catholic is, sincerely, pursuing the path that they believe will ultimately lead to fewer abortions and a correction of our ‘pro death’ culture, and they are driven by the absolute certaintly of their moral conscience, they, like me, agree in our infallible teaching - that abortion itself is a grave moral disorder.
They are disagreeing on a prudential teaching of some significance which is not a matter to be taken lightly. But, as we have seen, many Catholics find themselves in disagreement with Rome on matters that the Church has described as ‘pro life’. We believe that it is most likely that the Church is correct and it is the moral conscience of the individual that is not yet sufficiently developed, but we do not, in general, assert that such disagreements, in of themselves, make one cease to be Catholic or Christian.
Peace
B
BamaRider
Guest
Vern thinks like a Protestant? Dang, I wonder what they say about ME?? LOL.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Never. I have merely noted that you promote certain Evangelical Protestant ideas, such as your views on the poor being primarily responsible for their plight and wealth being a legitimate yard stick for individual virtue.
I’ve noted that some Protestant influence is almost unavoidable. We live in a predominantly Protestant nation (and spent most of history as a villified minority).
You support a political party that has elevated extreme Evangelical Protestantism to special status (folks who decry us as a non Christian cult are sought out and actively woo’ed). Why is it shocking that some of the ideas you hold are Evengelical Protestant, not Catholic?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
When you blow smoke up me kilts like that, it tickles.
What a tap dance!
If you wouldn’t make such snide accusations, you wouldn’t have to tie yourself in knots like that to deny them, you know.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
What in the world did you just say? I will give an answer any way. Abortion is always wrong. The end does not justify the means. An individual has an absolute moral obligation to properly form their conscience. The Church is infallible in its teaching on Faith and Morals. Abortion involves morals. What do you not understand…
Prayers & blessings.
Deacon Ed B
B
BamaRider
Guest
The Deacon, confident in what he believes in, and how they Faith should be lived said this-
their heads, so Deacon Ed just came out and asked-
He later added this caveat to make sure he and Vern were on th same page (they are)
SoCal then put this out-
This had everybody scratching
their heads, so Deacon Ed just came out and asked-To which I’m gonna predict another looooooong weather report. that will put us to
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I predict it will go like this:The Deacon, confident in what he believes in, and how they Faith should be lived said this-
He later added this caveat to make sure he and Vern were on th same page (they are)
SoCal then put this out-
This had everybody scrathing their heads, so Deacon Ed just came out and asked-
To which I’m gonna predict another looooooong weather report. that will put us to
And then I’ll quote the Catechism:
Then our correspondent will explain that the Catechism is really only a “crib sheet” and away we go again!
B
BamaRider
Guest
I predict it will go like this:
And then I’ll quote the Catechism:
Then our correspondent will explain that the Catechism is really only a “crib sheet” and away we go again!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That kind of round-and-round argument that keeps feeding on ideas like
seems incestuous to me, don’t you agree?
- Status