Catholics who vote for those who kill the innocent are-

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s easy to cover up so practicality, if not morality, would show that’s a bad idea.
 
It would be harder to pass as a law and since most murders don’t get the death penalty it wouldn’t work either.
 
Deciding to kill someone is never a good option to promote. Choose life consistently.
 
Last edited:
That is being pro-birth, not pro-life, and is as contrary to Church teaching as anyone who advocated abortion choice.
 
Last edited:
I’m not a hippy. Capital punishment is perfectly consistent with justice per the Church and God.
 
Actually you are incorrect.
There are many Democratic Party candidates who want abortion available only in the cases of incest and rape, or if the woman’s life is placed in jeopardy if the pregnancy continues.
I am against abortion, but I choose candidates based on other issues, as well, including affordable health care, fair taxation of the working class, fair pay for the working class, medicare benefits for the infirmed and aged, benefits for military veterans, more money for teachers and for education, in general, affordable college tuition, etc.
Abortion is a huge, important issue, but it is not the only issue.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
40.png
pnewton:
and is as contrary to Church teaching as anyone who advocated abortion choice.
Click to expand...
Pope Sixtus V would disagree.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of how people use WWJD to put their opinions in the mouth of Jesus. Besides, you do know he is not, and has not been for a long time, the actual Pope, right?
 
Last edited:
I’m using his bull

I didn’t know past popes became irrelevant. Is that from VII or the spirit of VII?
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
I didn’t know past popes became irrelevant. Is that from VII or the spirit of VII?
Click to expand...
It is traditional Catholicism that only the current Pope is the shepherd of the Church. I would think you knew that. The problem with using deceased people through history of any type to comment on a current situation is that they are not able to speak. Without the perspective of history and current events, there can be no knowing what they might have said if they were alive today.

This is why Jesus established authority in the Church. There had to be an adaptive means to lead his people through time. Through the great St. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis, we see this understanding of the value of life from conception to death. Executing a woman, who would present no threat to society, for having an abortion, is as contrary to the meaning of being pro-life as you can get. It is a direct contradiction of Church teaching.
 
pnewton said:
It is traditional Catholicism that only the current Pope is the shepherd of the Church.
Click to expand...
No disagreement.
pnewton said:
The problem with using deceased people through history of any type to comment on a current situation is that they are not able to speak.
Click to expand...
Is that what happens to the magesterium? They die and and their teachings and edicts and everything else go down the memory hole?
pnewton said:
Without the perspective of history and current events, there can be no knowing what they might have said if they were alive today.
Click to expand...
And yet, people still quote them. People with authority in the Church even do this. Do they not know any better?
pnewton said:
Through the great St. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis, we see this understanding of the value of life from conception to death
Click to expand...
I see what you did there.
pnewton said:
Executing a woman, who would present no threat to society, for having an abortion, is as contrary to the meaning of being pro-life as you can get.
Click to expand...
Huh. I thought murdering innocents was. Also, a woman who kills babies is hardly no threat to society. Women often have more than one abortion.
pnewton said:
It is a direct contradiction of Church teaching.
Click to expand...
That’s been addressed in the proper thread already.
 
Last edited:
I’m not saying you were wrong to disagree with me here - since, yes, I did bring it up. I’m just not going to argue it with you here.
 
pnewton said:
It is traditional Catholicism that only the current Pope is the shepherd of the Church
Click to expand...
So when you’re Pope your words have moral weight, but when you die those same words somehow lose their weight?

I don’t want to shock you, but you might not want to look inbetween James and First John in your Bible.
 
nfinke said:
So when you’re Pope your words have moral weight, but when you die those same words somehow lose their weight?
Click to expand...
If that is what you got from my post, you should not try and interpret more complex matters. That is nothing like I said. It is a terrible re-phrasing.

The answer to your question is a simple, “No.”
 
pnewton said:
you do know he is not, and has not been for a long time, the actual Pope, right?
Click to expand...
The post seemed to pretty clearly say that one of the reasons the opinion of Sixtus isn’t relevant is because he isnt currently the Pope, or because he was Pope a long time ago, and times have changed. Im not sure what else you’re trying to imply by responding to “Sixtus V would disagree” with ‘well he’s not Pope anymore’.

And you responded again with “only the current Pope is the shepherd of the church”. I don’t know how to read that other than youre implying not being the current Pope, or living in the past, somehow takes validity from your opinions. You mention there’s no knowing what a historical person would say given recent events, and I’ll admit that’s generally true, but I would think the moral opinions of the vicar of Christ would be in a slightly different category.
 
Last edited:
You should be careful when quoting someone that you don’t give the wrong impression of that person’s position. The one sentence of mine you quoted above was actually my quoting of Fr. Mark’s position. My very next sentence which you omitted was “I totally disagree”. I’m sure you knew that having just read my post, but those reading your post here might think the opposite. It would have been better if you had included “I totally disagree” and even the sentence before that so that people get the correct impression.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
What is true is that abortion is a terrible sin, and all faithful Christians, and especially Catholics, should consider it to be a terrible sin. What is not so clear is to what extent Catholics have a duty to prevent that sin for being committed.
Click to expand...
Here is what the most recent letter from the Bishops Conference said on the issue…
“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family and because of the number of lives destroyed.”
Click to expand...
I suppose it isn’t clear to what extent Catholics have a duty to prevent murder, slavery, rape, child abuse, etc.,

How about not prioritizing and doing everything we can to prevent all of them, instead of attempting to reduce the importance of the issue.

Despite what Cardinal Cupich insists, racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty are not on the same moral plane as murder, rape, slavery and child abuse.
 
Last edited:
I think that if slavery were still legal in the US, there would no doubt be some counseling us not to be single issue voters, because after all, slavery is not the only issue out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top