Hillary Clinton Thread

[I_trust]

Jewish people do not believe in the Trinity. I am not going to tell them they are wrong. It is arrogance to me to believe that Catholic humans could never have made a wrong interpretation.
We are not talking here about individual Catholics but official Catholic teaching.

All of the Jewish people I know have been quite understanding and accepting of differences in religion. Should our charity not extend to them and their religion? Of course it should.
Charity yes. Denying the truths of the Catholic faith in order to get along, no.

Even the greatest Catholic scholars do not know all there is to know.** If you’ve studied Church history**, look at the way the Church has evolved over the ages. It’s by no means remained static in its beliefs.
The Catholic teaching on abortion dates back to the 1st century and has not changed. Why do you assume I have not studied Church history?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I_trust:
If you want me to read it, you have to write in plain black, not bolded. The red is too hard to read, and I have to read too much as it is. Sorry.

 

[otjm]

If you want me to read it, you have to write in plain black, not bolded. The red is too hard to read, and I have to read too much as it is. Sorry.

Try it for a change - it really is not all that hard.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Try it for a change - it really is not all that hard.

No, thank you. LOL I have to read about eight books, thick books, each week. I’m not going to strain my eyes further by trying to read a message board post in bolded red. I stick to posts in ordinary black type.

 

[I_trust]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
EVANGELIUM VITAE
Addressed by the Supreme Pontiff
John Paul II

Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable.72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.73

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/evtext.htm

 

[I_trust]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
EVANGELIUM VITAE
Addressed by the Supreme Pontiff
John Paul II

1. The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII’s Encyclical: “Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience…; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse”.95 This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that “human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence”.96 And again: “Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law”.97

Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

1. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God—to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty—that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.98

 

[Lily_Bernans]

What is the point of posting part of Evangelium Vitae?

I think most of us know what it says. I taught it last semester to my upper classes as part of Moral Theology.

And, as I’ve stated previously, Frank Pavone is a relative of mine, so I see him fairly often. Not really often, but often enough. And I don’t mean that as an insult to Fr. Pavone.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m saying I believe in freedom of religion.

So, if a U.S. Muslim stones his daughter to death for having sex, you would not prosecute him? If a U.S. Hindu family throws a decedent’s wife onto his funeral pyre, you are okay with it in the name of freedom of religion?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

So, if a U.S. Muslim stones his daughter to death for having sex, you would not prosecute him? If a U.S. Hindu family throws a decedent’s wife onto his funeral pyre, you are okay with it in the name of freedom of religion?

Those things are against the law in the US. In the US, we punish people for doing things that are against the law; therefore, we would have to punish women who procure an abortion should abortion become illegal.

I am Catholic, but I believe in keeping abortion legal. Catholic women can just avoid it, unless, of course, they aren’t good Catholics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What is the point of posting part of Evangelium Vitae?

I think most of us know what it says. I taught it last semester to my upper classes as part of Moral Theology.

Interesting. One has to wonder whether, in teaching it, some theology professors say it is just one opinion out of many, all having equal value. Apparently some do. My son transferred from a nominally “Catholic” university to a state U so he “wouldn’t have to listen to anti-Catholicism in the classroom anymore”. And after he transferred, he didn’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those things are against the law in the US. In the US, we punish people for doing things that are against the law; therefore, we would have to punish women who procure an abortion should abortion become illegal.

I am Catholic, but I believe in keeping abortion legal. Catholic women can just avoid it, unless, of course, they aren’t good Catholics.

Unborn children can’t avoid it, though, if their mothers want it. And does a “good Catholic” countenance killing, so long as the perpetrator desires to do it?

Remarkable. So, whatever is the law should remain the law, no matter how pernicious. And whatever becomes the law must be morally accepted. So, if someday, stoning for adultery is legalized, you would think it worthy of your support?

 

[grotto]

Drip - Drip - Drip! Hilary had another server. Turning over emails was a made for tv series!
Her staff had to work 24/7 to sanitize as much as they could. Not good enough staff! The emails are taking on a life of their own and refuse to be ignored any longer! So the “other” than the two already is giving up the Benghazi “cut and pastes”. How much longer will we await the advice: “you are under arrest. you have a right to remain silent, you are advised that anything you say may be used against you in a court of law”, etc.

---

Back to Hillary: Director Comey may question her, himself! A big push is coming to change the laws - the Dems want to LOWER the levels of breaking the law so Hillary will
not be charged.

Its like the Super delegates and the backroom politics!

Also, like the same dozen of pro-abort posters that swamp the threads, its backroom again!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Unborn children can’t avoid it, though, if their mothers want it. And does a “good Catholic” countenance killing, so long as the perpetrator desires to do it?

Remarkable. So, whatever is the law should remain the law, no matter how pernicious. And whatever becomes the law must be morally accepted. So, if someday, stoning for adultery is legalized, you would think it worthy of your support?

Ridgerunner, I’ve been down this road before, maybe not with you, but with some posters.

With all due respect to your feelings, and I do respect them, I’m going to wait until abortion is illegal before I go down that road again. It never leads anywhere and just causes problems and hurt feelings for posters on both sides.

I, personally, don’t believe in abortion and would never have one. I don’t think laws are the answer to the problem. People break laws when they want to. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
EVANGELIUM VITAE
Addressed by the Supreme Pontiff
John Paul II

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/evtext.htm

If you go back to Humanae Vitae, you’ll see the pope who wrote that laid the blame for the entire “culture of death” at the feet of contraceptives. They rob the sexual act of its primary function: procreation. When that act is robbed of its primary function, it brings forth a host of evils.

Looking back to my upper level Catholic Bioethics class, I remember the instructor telling us that things like premarital sex, abortion, etc. will not leave us until contraception does. I can’t see that happening any time soon.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those things are against the law in the US. In the US, we punish people for doing things that are against the law; therefore, we would have to punish women who procure an abortion should abortion become illegal.

.

Not so. Nor was it the case before Roe.

There are lots of situations in which a joint perpetrator is not punished under American laws. An easy example is having sex with a minor. It’s a crime to have sex with a 16-year-old in my state, unless both perpetrators are 16-year-olds. Then it isn’t.

In some states, it’s a crime to sell a small amount of marijuana, but it’s not a crime to buy it.
It’s a crime to have that amount with intent to sell, but not with intent to use.

“You will have to punish the woman” is just a straw argument made by those who support abortion on demand for other reasons, and one is well advised to clear one’s mind of it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Not so. Nor was it the case before Roe.

There are lots of situations in which a joint perpetrator is not punished under American laws. An easy example is having sex with a minor. It’s a crime to have sex with a 16-year-old in my state, unless both perpetrators are 16-year-olds. Then it isn’t.

In some states, it’s a crime to sell a small amount of marijuana, but it’s not a crime to buy it.
It’s a crime to have that amount with intent to sell, but not with intent to use.

“You will have to punish the woman” is just a straw argument made by those who support abortion on demand for other reasons, and one is well advised to clear one’s mind of it.

I mean no disrespect to you, Ridgerunner, but I’m not going down that road again until abortion is illegal. Thank you for understanding. It’s nothing against you, I like you personally.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner, I’ve been down this road before, maybe not with you, but with some posters.

With all due respect to your feelings, and I do respect them, I’m going to wait until abortion is illegal before I go down that road again. It never leads anywhere and just causes problems and hurt feelings for posters on both sides.

I, personally, don’t believe in abortion and would never have one. I don’t think laws are the answer to the problem. People break laws when they want to. I’ll leave it at that.

Undoubtedly there were people who felt the same way about segregation. It just was “never the time”, and opposing it caused ill feelings with some. But causing ill feelings isn’t the proper yardstick of what’s right and wrong, because some will come away with bad feelings about discussion of any issue.

And just so you know, I realize full well that I will never persuade you to oppose abortion on demand. As with lots of posters, I say what I do a good part of the time so other viewers (viewers outnumber posters about 10 to 1) will not think something posited here is right when it isn’t.

The fact of lawbreaking doesn’t justify the law or absence thereof. People murder and steal, but it doesn’t mean we should not prohibit murder or theft. Nor does it mean laws against it have no beneficial effect on society.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Undoubtedly there were people who felt the same way about segregation. It just was “never the time”, and opposing it caused ill feelings with some. But causing ill feelings isn’t the proper yardstick of what’s right and wrong, because some will come away with bad feelings about discussion of any issue.

And just so you know, I realize full well that I will never persuade you to oppose abortion on demand. As with lots of posters, I say what I do a good part of the time so other viewers (viewers outnumber posters about 10 to 1) will not think something posited here is right when it isn’t.

The fact of lawbreaking doesn’t justify the law or absence thereof. People murder and steal, but it doesn’t mean we should not prohibit murder or theft. Nor does it mean laws against it have no beneficial effect on society.

I understand your feelings, Ridgerunner, and you certainly have a right to post what you want. I support you in that.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Orthodox Judaism thinks Catholicism is wrong on several issues. Who are we to say they are wrong, and we are right? Is arrogance now a part of our religion?

Hopefully arrogance isn’t. But honestly I don’t know why it is so difficult for Catholic Republicans on CAF and elsewhere to understand that a faithful Catholic can personally accept their faith’s moral authority and moral teachings but at the same time understand they live in a pluralistic country with many others of many faiths as well as some of no faith. In a country with a Constitution and where the Catholic Church doesn’t make the laws. I’ve no doubt though that God with the capacity to know the heart and mind, has the capability to understand. Continued peace to you Lily Bernans.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thank you, Jeanne, but he changed his mind about that already. He’s now saying only the doctors should be held accountable.

I should add that the above was his position at 7:00 on Wednesday evening ET. Where he stands now, I have no idea.

Film at 11.