There is a big difference between the clerical behavior of a clericalist, and the prophetic behavior of a man of God. There is no life in clericalism; there is life - and truth - in the cross.
It does look like there are serious divisions in the Roman Catholic Church today. and not just with this issue. AFAIK, the marks of the true church are that it be ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic. If a Church is not ONE, but is divided, would that then mean that it could not be the true Church?
catholicphilly.com
It’s still “One”. We just bicker a lot.
Please do accuse me of believing the truth of Scripture which affirms that fear of righteous punishment is a strong motivation to repent and follow the one way of righteousness and the obedience of faith, manifesting a conscience that is actually well-formed. (Yes, the path to filial fear begins with a healthy awakening in servile fear.)
This is a big, important, complicated question that deserves a thread of its own. But I suggest you refer to the Catechism, which begins the answer with the part I’ll quote below - and it continues for a while. It’s good reading, which I recommend to you.
If we were talking about any other crime than the crime of abortion, how would your comment above sound?
Your analogies don’t fit, in my opinion. And, frankly, as your list shows, outlawing certain behavior does not end that behavior. Your argument works against you, actually.
How do you convince people to live by Christian ideals?
You missed my point. Of course, law does not stop crime, but still it discourages it and reduces it somewhat, thus we understand its limits and its value. We DO NOT reject law as a necessity for civil society! Do you want an end to all law? Or just abortion. Why not every other crime? That is my point.
I wish priests speaking the truth had standing among the general population as moral authorities. I don’t think they do.
I’m saying you can’t legislate morality. Yes, there is a general, moral consensus that murder should be illegal. There is not that same consensus that abortion should be illegal.
Especially when it’s not at all clear and may very well not even be the case that the person is going to Hell for whatever they did.
No you can’t tell them they are going to hell because that is not our place to know who is going to hell or not but you can explain to them God’s way and what the eternal consequences are for sin.
Permit me to respectfully disagree just a little. We did do some things. The people revolted at least somewhat against the secularist theocracy in electing Trump. More Catholics voted against the Dem contender than in the previous two elections. Not much, but it’s something.
There is a great deal to clear out, and much of it in high places. The US bishops vote on whether abortion is the peeminent issue in this election is a sign of hope…at least for the majority.
Why is one form murder takes morally different from another?
No. Only that it’s gravely sinful to support abortion in the absence of an equally grave reason to do so. Possibly you could explain the difference to us.
I realize the Dem party would prefer that people “form their conscience” contrary to the teachings of the Church. Hillary Clinton, after all, decreed that we must “change our religion” to accommodate abortion. She at least knows supporting abortion is contrary to the teachings of the Church, though other Dems convince themselves otherwise, But an “informed” conscience will not countenance the sin of supporting abortion. As the bishops have said, it is the preeminent issue in this election.
Which you are implying is going to hell, so there you are.
I think that’s snark, but I’m not sure.
Letting people know what could happen is different than saying what will happen.
It’s not a snark but dont you see you are saying we shouldn’t tell them what could happen to their eternal soul or what they do offends God and harms others because they might walk away. Why would they walk away, because they are offended by the Gospel.
I’m saying that’s awfully heavy. There’s probably a better way to persuade people.
Well, if you’re trying to persuade someone to believe what you’re telling them, offending them is a losing strategy. It is possible to tell the truth without being offensive.
Only if they follow Church teaching.
Is truth relative?
This is what I mean by selective subterfuge and ignoring the full teaching of the Church. The words “preeminent issue” tell us nothing about the best way to actually discourage abortions. On that we can and obviously do disagree. And disregarding or diminishing the teaching of Pope Francis, “equally sacred,” when referring to the other life issues is downright misleading. Those words are also found in Faithful Citizenship. And how we best help the poor, those already born, the abandoned and underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly is also open to legitimate debate.