Democratic Strategists Issue Memo on Loss of Catholics

[Richardols]

Brad:

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.

You may be correct here.

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.

Of course, if these people were not given shortened sentences, and were sent instead to maximum security facilities, then they’d not be out on the street to kill again. Using the death penalty wouldn’t be much of a solution here IMO.

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

You may be correct here.

Of course, if these people were not given shortened sentences, and were sent instead to maximum security facilities, then they’d not be out on the street to kill again. Using the death penalty wouldn’t be much of a solution here IMO.

Because prisoners can also commit murder in prisons, then I’m not sure your solution is much of a solution either.

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

Because prisoners can also commit murder in prisons, then I’m not sure your solution is much of a solution either.

Point well made. The situation of a lifer killing a fellow inmate, then killing one of the guards trying to subdue him would be, probably, one of those rare times when the death penalty is actually appropriate. What else is there? He’s already a lifer.

 

[Trelow]

Evangelism Vitae doesn’t have to be infallible. It’s not a statement of faith. It’s an explanation of faith.

 

[Richardols]

Trelow:

Evangelism Vitae doesn’t have to be infallible. It’s not a statement of faith. It’s an explanation of faith.

It doesn’t have to be, and isn’t. You’re right.

 

[condan]

Richardols:

1. You said, "Evangelium Vitae, like other encyclicals, is “ex cathedra.” So, you did, in fact, say that an encyclical was infallible.

Originally Posted by condan

Evangelium Vitae, like other encyclicals, is ex cathedra. It is an official statement. Dogma is infallible.
​

What I should have said is: “…On the other hand, dogma is infallible.”​

From Catholic Enclyclopedia.com:
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#V

**

**WHAT TEACHING IS INFALLIBLE? **

A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.
**

 

[condan]

Trelow:

Evangelism Vitae doesn’t have to be infallible. It’s not a statement of faith. It’s an explanation of faith.

Thank you! I guess I wasn’t expressing myself clearly.

 

[Richardols]

condan:

Originally Posted by condan
Evangelium Vitae, like other encyclicals, is ex cathedra. It is an official statement. Dogma is infallible.

What I should have said is: “…On the other hand, dogma is infallible.”

The best, I think, would have for you to have said, “Though Evangelium Vitae is not ex cathedra infallible, it is an official statement by the Pope expressing positions that he judges to be irreversible.”

Which is BTW, exactly the position he took on the Encyclical, according to Cardinal Dulles.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Of course, if these people were not given shortened sentences, and were sent instead to maximum security facilities, then they’d not be out on the street to kill again. Using the death penalty wouldn’t be much of a solution here IMO.

I agree! Wow - that must be a couple times now for us!

 

[Magster]

gilliam:

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "elieves in a woman’s right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption." This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a “tragic choice.” In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced but also called on increased funding for “family planning services,” a euphemism for contraception, abortifacients and abortions.

 

[Magster]

gilliam:

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "elieves in a woman’s right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption." This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a “tragic choice.” In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced but also called on increased funding for “family planning services,” a euphemism for contraception, abortifacients and abortions.

Someone should advise the Democrats of the number of abortions caused by contraception. They just won’t accept that a fertilized egg is human life.
Also, if Hillary Clinton thinks abortion is “tragic” then why is it legal? I can’t think of anything else that can be characterized as both “tragic” and “legal” other than legally assisted suicide in those states permitting it, and removing feeding tubes from otherwise healthy individuals like Terri Schiavo. Bottom line, if its tragic, it should not be legal.

 

[Trelow]

Magster:

I can’t think of anything else that can be characterized as both “tragic” and “legal” other than legally assisted suicide in those states permitting it, and removing feeding tubes from otherwise healthy individuals like Terri Schiavo. Bottom line, if its tragic, it should not be legal.

What about the hockey season, or lack thereof?
Thats both tragic and legal.

 

[Richardols]

Magster:

Bottom line, if its tragic, it should not be legal.

A 35 year old NCO from my city was killed in Iraq. He left a widow, four children, and few assets.

That’s tragic. But, it isn’t grounds for making war illegal.

 

[Magster]

Richardols:

A 35 year old NCO from my city was killed in Iraq. He left a widow, four children, and few assets.

That’s tragic. But, it isn’t grounds for making war illegal.

I should clarify - if an act is tragic, then there should not be laws intended to directly facilitate it.
The unfortunate death of the NCO who left a widow and four children, although tragic, no doubt was the direct result of some act other than the declaration of war on Iraq, which undoubtedly indirectly contributed to his death.

As for Trelow’s remark, I would characterize the cancelation of the NHL’s season as an unfortunate fiasco which may lead to the demise of professional hockey in the U.S. That may be an undesirable result, but it does not amount to a tragedy, especially when compared to Richardols’ example.

 

[Jeffrey]

delcor:

Take a look at the slaughtered children in Iraq. They have a right to life just like anyone else.

Which is EXACTLY why it is good that Saddam is out of power.

 

[Jeffrey]

Don’t forget about Joe Schriner.

Richardols:

And, if one voted for Bush, one cannot honestly himself a pro-lifer either because Bush accepts abortion, subject to “the three exceptions.”

The only honestly pro-life candidate in the last election was the fellow from the Constitutional Party.

 

[Jeffrey]

He definetly implied that…period.

Richardols:

You said directly, “Delcor is saying that US strategy in Iraq is to kill children.”

He did not say that. Period.