Senator Pryor words are turning out to be only that - just words. Watch his votes on judicial nominees, actions speak louder than words.
I’ve already said that I know that the Church tolerates the death penalty, but per the CCC under such a narrow circumstance as to make it effectively nonexistent. I see that as saying that the Church must acknowledge a right to capital punishment, but is effectively opposed to capital punishment.
Sure. I went to Fordham University and have even met him on several occasions.
Which is less than a hairsbreadth away from being overtly opposed to capital punishment. Just as I believe.
In your personal acquaintanceship, okay.
Sure, but his is the same position Bush takes. I agree it’s not truly pro-life, but go talk to the Bushies on this Forum. They consider Bush pro-life. So, Pryor is good enough.
One can vote against Bush’s nominees for reasons other than their position on abortion.
If one keeps voting Democratic justifying it for whatever reason the same characters will be voted in and we will have:
You are correct, and I’ve never voted the straight ticket in any election. Though voting the party ticket might have been an option years ago, it no longer is, and candidates have to be individually evaluated.
Sorry I was not clear.
It is not that they don’t do research, it is that they are blinded by very ingrained suppositions. And sadly, they are not alone. I don’t think that many people are really able to separate the two ends of the spectrum; they see most things in a much more black and white perspective than they do in shades of grey.
What was Senator Mark Pryor’s problem with pro-life Catholic nominee Attorney General/now Justice Pryor?
Some were guilty, some weren’t. Most probably were. But given the fact that in theory our system of justice is designed to ferret out the truth, and in practice the system results in winning at any cost, one should be at least a bit circumspect when one addresses the death penalty.
I believe that Justice Pryor was seen as being on the extreme right-wing by the Senator. Just being a Catholic and being pro-life doesn’t necessarily outweigh one’s other perceived faults.
What were his “other” faults.
One can be orthodox and either liberal or conservative in faith, as the orthodox applies to the doctrinal content, but the liberal or conservative view applies to praxis, and most usually to items or issues that are disciplinary.
That has many colors to it, and in particular whether or not the government was aligned with, or as in England, synonomous with, the Church, be it the Catholic Church, the Lutheran, the Anglican, or some other Protestant group.
You phrase that as if the only quality the man has is being a pro-life Catholic. BFD. I, too, am a pro-life Catholic, and an attorney. Does that qualify me for the federal appellate bench?
He is also opposed to so-called “gay rights”.
I was going to say this, but you beat me to the punch. There is this odd notion that one cannot be doctrinally/dogmatically orthodox and still concerned with social justice. I’m sure that Archbishop Chaput puts that idea to rest. I wish they would elevate him, but leave him in Denver. Other dioceses could stand a red hat and it seems unfair to deprive the people of Denver of such an excellent shepherd. I reckon that’s the Holy Father’s business, though.