F
Faustina
Guest
Stop with the either- or argument. It gets nowhere fast.
- Status
D
demolitionman65
Guest
Holy cow, people. BACK ON TOPIC, PLEASE!!!
A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats “striking” and “a big part of the 2004 election story.” One of the analysis’ key findings is that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life which the authors called “a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at least in the Midwest.” The data also reveals that young Catholics are more pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.
DUH!!!
I have been saying for some time on other forums that the Democrats are missing the boat big time on the pro-life vote. Reasons include:
A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats “striking” and “a big part of the 2004 election story.” One of the analysis’ key findings is that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life which the authors called “a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at least in the Midwest.” The data also reveals that young Catholics are more pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.
DUH!!!
I have been saying for some time on other forums that the Democrats are missing the boat big time on the pro-life vote. Reasons include:
*]More consistency with the rest of their platform. they claim to be the “people’s party”, looking out for the poor, defenseless and downtrodden. What can be more defenseless than a baby targeted for abortion?
*]This is a make-or-break issue for many voters. . including me. Their base would VASTLY INCREASE if they would drop their abortion plank.
*]They then argue that they’ll lose the women’s vote. Horsefeathers/. They’ll lose the feminazi vote, which isn’t that big (but is very vociferous) in the first place.
*]Besides, where would the feminazis go? To the Republicans? To them, the GOP is the antichrist. There is NO WAY that the feminazis will lose more votes for the Donkeys than they will gain by dumping abortion.
I’m telling you, if the Dems change their tune on abortion, there would be a massive upheaval in American electoral politics.
C
condan
Guest
Why the label? Seems pretty divisive and pejorative and certainly not very Christian. In any event, there is a wide expanse between “brushing off” the Pope’s teaching and being duty-bound by it.
Of course we should pay attention to it. However, as stated above, we are not duty-bound. We must render unto Ceasar. Gee, where have I heard that before? (Evangelium Vitae, like other encyclicals, is ex cathedra. It is an official statement. Dogma is infallible.)
No, its pretty plain that there are times when there is a clear public danger that the death penalty may be applied. However, since we are not a Catholic country, the Pope, no matter how beloved he is, would be acting inappropriately if he would demand that the people follow teaching that didn’t apply to him. As a devout traditional Catholic, I am not a big fan of the death penalty. However, there are circumstances where it is warranted and should be applied swiftly.
Just as an aside, I wonder if all those who are sticklers for following Pope John Paul II’s words on the war in Iraq are as fastidious in following papal teaching on artificial birth control, abortion, divorce and liturgical practice. How many Bush-bashers let God plan the size of their families or vocally decry a woman’s ability to murder her unborn child? How many Bush-bashers are divorced and remarried yet find themselves on the Communion line?
Its the pick-and-choose mentality that really gets me.
D
delcor
Guest
This last post is the first I’ve read on this thread tonight (4/13). Your last comment is all I needed to see. It’s the same comment I was making last night: positions here go strictly along political party lines. They have LITTLE TO NOTHING to do with religion or Christianity. It’s clear the United States is not going to mend fences internally along religious lines, how can we dictate religion to other countries? How can we spread “democracy” to other countries when democracy to the U.S. is clearly defined as “capitalism?”
Your comment: “Its the pick-and-choose mentality that really gets me.” That’s exactly what I was saying. Killing brown babies in another country is fine with you, as long as your Prophet Bush throws you a bone with a document signing ceremony memorializing an agenda that is dear to your heart. In the meantime, he’s landing on an aircraft carriers chanting “Mission Accomplished” regarding bombing the living guts out of innocent people in a Third World Country! How can you live with yourself? Yikes! God help us all!
D
delcor
Guest
Moving up from the end, this is the 2nd comment on this thread I’ve read tonight. Excuse me if I hijacked this thread, I thought I was responding to the title, which is: “Democratic Strategists Issue Memo on Loss of Catholics.” Feel free to toggle up and read my original comments and you will see I responded on topic regarding the religious/voting aspects of this thread.
And I’ve already talked about Christianity. Nothing has changed. I commented that it’s not Christian to annhilate innocent children and civilians in a Third World Country because Republicans in the United States say it’s okay. That’s just Republicans talking; it’s not Christianity. Please don’t sully Americans or Christianity with your blood thirsty capitalism, because that’s what it is.
Democrats have lots of fault too. Both parties have been remiss and have let “9/11” become the platform to launch or end political careers and business endeavors. The U.S. has committed 9/11 on innocent Iraqi’s everyday for 2 years now. Every day! Saddam’s been gone for a year and a half now, and young G.I.'s are still dying and young Iraqi’s are dying everyday there. Come on! Get real! This is a shameful slaughter!
Just admit that you’re much more partisan than you are religious. No truly religious person would tolerate the slaughtering of innocent children in Iraq. Shame on you.
C
chicago
Guest
I tend to agree. Many regular Democratic voters are basically pro-life. It wouldn’t hurt a candidate at all and might actually help them to be pro-life in many a race. Unless, like in the Illinois gubinitorial race of a few years ago, the uber-liberals run to the Republican who isn’t such a die hard believer in the cause while the conservatives stick with their party’s guy. And the latter difficulty may be where the greater difficulty could lie for the Democrats if they went pro-life.
C
condan
Guest
Wearing a tin-foil hat while drinking Kool-Aid.
T
Trelow
Guest
Nice to see you back Governor Dean.
R
Richardols
Guest
You are entirely wrong.
Look up “ex cathedra.” See what the formal requirements for an ex cathedra pronouncement are. You don’t know what ex cathedra means. Only two doctrines, Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception/Assumption, have been proclaimed ex cathedra. Only two.
Evangelium Vitae is an official statement, yes. It is not dogma.
And it is NOT infallible. Let me quote from Avery Cardinal Dulles concerning the promulgation of EV: (citation from First Things 56, October 1995; 32-38)
"The properly doctrinal part of EV comes in the third chapter, and especially in the three italicized statements within that chapter, in which the Pope condemns the taking of innocent life, abortion, and euthanasia. In these italicized condemnations the language is very strong, approaching that of infallible definitions. After claiming the authority of natural law, Scripture, tradition, the previous teaching of the magisterium, and the unanimous agreement of the bishops today, the Pope appeals to his own authority as successor of Peter and issues a solemn declaration. The consultation of bishops preceding this encyclical reminds one of the consultations undertaken by Pius IX and Pius XII before the definition of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
According to Cardinal Ratzinger and others, earlier drafts of the encyclical did contain infallible definitions, but the language of dogmatic definition and infallibility was dropped in the final text. Ratzinger says that it was considered unnecessary to define dogmatically what was already so clear from Christian faith and tradition. Another motive for avoiding an infallible definition may have been the ongoing debate about whether papal infallibility extends to specific principles of natural law unless they are clearly taught in revelation itself. On abortion and euthanasia the testimony of Scripture and early tradition is relatively weak. It may also be said that the Church’s position with regard to these practices is still evolving as new scientific knowledge and technology become available.
Whatever the reason for the amendment, it seems clear that EV does not define irreformable dogmas." (emphasis added)
We are obliged to obey the Pope on this matter, even though he did not proclaim it as an infallible doctrine.
R
Richardols
Guest
Name one, where life in a maximum security prison isn’t an alternative.
By your standard, when the Pope condemns euthanasia and abortion, it only applies to Catholics, not to anyone else, as we are not a Catholic country. And it was wrong of him to have sent representatives to the Cairo Conference to condemn abortion because so much of the world is not composed of Catholic countries either. You really believe that?
You’re not a big fan of the death penalty. How can a self-described “devout traditional Catholic” be any sort of a fan of the death penalty???
Give me a circumstance where you consider it warranted.
R
Richardols
Guest
Why not wonder also if those who rejected the Pope on the war in Iraq are equally fastidious?
Ask the same about the Bush worshipers.
Ask the same about the Bush lovers.
B
Brad
Guest
Richardols said:
R
Richardols
Guest
That is probably impossible as Pres. Bush has the actual letter.
The Vatican website was my source for what the Laghi letter said.
C
condan
Guest
I know what ex cathedra means. I also know how to read. I said Evangelium Vitae was an encyclical. I did not say it was dogma. I contrasted Evangelium Vitae, an encyclical, with dogma which is a fact of faith and is infallible.
Ex Cathedra
Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)
PS: I also know when I’m being insulted. If you are going to do so, please keep it to the forum and don’t insult me via private message. I don’t have the time or the patience to deal with it twice. One insult per topic should suffice.
R
Richardols
Guest
Awfully touchy, aren’t you? Can’t take correction even of a gross misstatement?
As you publicly accuse me of insulting you in my private message, I’ll provide its text lest anyone here think that I did so:
"Please review Post # 89 on the Democratic Strategists Issue Memo on Loss of Catholics thread on the In The News Topic.
You were wrong about Evangelium Vitae being dogma, or infallible and I’ve provided Cardinal Dulles’s analysis of the encyclical’s non-infallibility."
Where’s the insult? I was only correcting you error in saying that the Encyclical was ex cathedra and therefore infallible, which it isn’t.
C
condan
Guest
Here’s the insult: "You don’t know what ex cathedra means". It is an insult since I never said that an encyclical was infallible and apparently I do know what ex cathedra means as well as how it is applied.
Again, I said that dogma is infallible as opposed to an encyclical. In my private reply I stated that Evangelium Vitae was NOT dogma. The immaculate conception is dogma. Christ rising from the dead is dogma. I said “dogma is infallible”. Evangelium Vitae is teaching.
There was no gross misstatement only a misinterpretation. I am happy to be corrected which is one of the reasons I participate in this forum. However, I’d like to limit my corrections only to those situations where they would actually apply.
'Nuf said.
C
condan
Guest
I leave the circumstances of when and how capital punishment to the temporal authority to decide. I leave matters of faith and morals to sacred scripture as promulgated by the Holy Father. I follow the CCC which states that the temporal authority, i.e., the government, may use the death penalty to protect its citizens and that we may support this use and still remain Catholic in good standing. The same cannot be said for euthanasia, abortion or artificial birth control.
And as regards your question on euthenasia and abortion, if you can’t see the difference between executing a convicted criminal and murdering the innocent unborn or the defenseless infirm, then I don’t have the power to sway your logic. Only God can do that. There is a difference and that is why the CCC teaches that we must always protect innocent human life while recognizing that there are rare circumstances where someone would forfeit his or her own life as a form of punishment for a serious crime. That is settled traditional Catholic teaching. The fact that it doesn’t work for you is something you have to deal with. I’m perfectly comfortable with making the necessary distinctions.
R
Richardols
Guest
- You said, "Evangelium Vitae, like other encyclicals, is “ex cathedra.” So, you did, in fact, say that an encyclical was infallible.
- “You don’t know what ex cathedra means” is not an insult, but an observation that you were in error. But, okay, I should have expressed it more gently.
- You said, “don’t insult me via private message.” Again, you were wrong. I was absolutely neutral in my personal message.
R
Richardols
Guest
But, you should also be mindful of the Pope’s statement that while the death penalty may still be in accord with Catholic belief, there are almost no circumstances any more where it can legitimately be applied. I’d hope that you stand with His Holiness.
Where did I even mention differences between the death penalty and abortion?
Yeah, doesn’t work for me and the Pope. Regardless whether or not the death penalty is still tolerable, I can’t imagine Pope John Paul being in favor of anyone receiving the death penalty.
B
Brad
Guest
I’m not sure what his exact statement was. I thought it was too the effect that in modern society, it SHOULD not ever be necessary.
I am mostly opposed to the death penalty. However, I can see people’s arguments on behalf of it in this country because our justice system is completely broken. We have a system that is far too favorable to the criminal and very lax on discipline. As a result, we see multiple offenders frequently. If we could cut down on multiple offenders, we could eliminate the death penalty - but that means paying a heavy price for every crime and no out of jail free cards.
- Status