House chaplain forced out by Ryan

  • Thread starter Thread starter lmachine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
As you know, Roe vs. Wade can only be undone by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
I don’t know this at all. Moreover, what makes you think the Court will undo it, and what makes you think that such an undoing will usher in something that affirms Catholic teaching on abortion?
 
Last edited:
qui_est_ce said:
It is interesting you only call out conservatives on this.
Click to expand...
Thanks for you interest.
I think that I call out individuals on this; but individuals who are members of some particular groups may be more inclined to the practice.
 
Not always. The Libertarian Party tried to espouse her ideals. In fact it chose To nominate Ron Paul, perhaps the most prolife politician, as its President. The party seemed to have fallen apart after he failed to drum up enough votes to be at least respectable. I think it was the policy of drugs that harmed them.
 
The 1973 Republican SC has more blood on its hands than either party in Congress.
 
dvdjs said:
The Church does not say that it is gravely immoral in principle, but it does say that in our practice it is.
Click to expand...
The Church does not say it’s “gravely” immoral in any circumstance. But immoral is immoral.

As I said before, I oppose the death penalty solely because JPII did. The quote from the CCC is from him. I do not think of it as intrinsically wrong, nor does the Church. The thing JPII did not add, but could have and I think probably intended, was “…if the society in question can afford it…”

Some can’t. But this society could. It would cost a lot, and there’s no doubt about it. Still, we should be about building enough “supermax” prisons to keep the sociopaths, Aryan Nations and such people sufficiently isolated that they can’t kill other prisoners or order killings outside the prison. Once we got that accomplished, then the moral thing to do would probably be to abolish the dp altogether in this country.
 
ProVobis said:
The 1973 Republican SC has more blood on its hands than either party in Congress.
Click to expand...
I agree in part. I doubt Eisenhower knew how his nominees would vote on abortion. But I think they’re all dead now, and both parties vet their nominees nowadays to ensure that they don’t “go rogue” like the justices in Roe did. Even at that, Roe was not made binding on the whole country until Planned Parenthood vs. CAsey. The vote in that one was 5-4. So one justice tipped the scale

Today, it’s a different court. In Carhart vs. Gonzales, about whether states could ban partial birth abortion, all Repubs voted in favor of the ban and all Dems voted to make it a “constitutional right”. Interestingly, even Kennedy, who usually votes the abortion way despite his Republican appointment and Catholicism, voted against partial birth abortion in “Carhart”. It was too much even for him.

Now, all Dem appointees are pro-abortion. All Repub appointees are prolife. But there aren’t enough Repub appointees to overturn Roe and CAsey.
.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Taking of a life?
Click to expand...
I understand that’s your interpretation. But the CCC does not say capital punishment is "gravely sinful, and certainly not in all circumstances. It just doesn’t. And the previous two canons to 2268 make it clear that the State can engage in capital punishment and talk about the conditions of doing it.
 
I wonder when is the last time one of their several Chaplains talked about the sanctity of unborn life?

That might be deemed too political as well, especially before a bill funding PP :roll_eyes:
 
Ridgerunner said:
ut the CCC does not say capital punishment is "gravely sinful, and certainly not in all circumstances
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with “not in all circumstances”. But it is plain enough that in our circumstances it is not admissible, and is direct and intentional killing regarded explicitly in the catechism as gravely sinful.
 
Last edited:
You’re putting too many eggs into one basket I think. An amendment to the Constitution properly worded would have a better long-term effect so that who’s on the SC won’t matter on this or any other matter.
 
dvdjs said:
But it is plain enough that in our circumstances it is not admissible, and is direct and intentional killing regarded explicitly in the catechism as gravely sinful.
Click to expand...
That’s your interpretation, not the words of the Catechism. The Catechism does not say capital punishment is “gravely sinful” anywhere. We agree that the Catechism says what it says.

I agree this country has a moral obligation to build more “supermax” prisons to keep the sociopaths and gangsters from killing and maiming in prison. And as to that, both Dems and Repubs are to blame, because neither has taken steps to do it.
 
The likelihood of getting a constitutional amendment done is pretty much zero. Until then, the Supreme Court is the only way to get Roe and CAsey and their progeny overruled.
 
It might be zero today but an amendment can take years to be approved by 3/4 of the states. I say get the ball rolling. 2/3 of the states calling for a convention to draft such a bill without Congress shouldn’t be that much of a barrier judging by the current state legislatures.
 
ProVobis said:
It might be zero today but an amendment can take years to be approved by 3/4 of the states. I say get the ball rolling. 2/3 of the states calling for a convention to draft such a bill without Congress shouldn’t be that much of a barrier judging by the current state legislatures.
Click to expand...
Since you know the only present way to change it is to put at least one more prolife justice on the Court, and since you know no Dem appointee is going to be prolife, is voting for a Dem sufficiently important to you to allow only the resort of a highly improbable constitutional amendment?
 
Ridgerunner said:
The Catechism does not say capital punishment is “gravely sinful” anywhere.
Click to expand...
it does say that sinful killing is gravely sinful.
it makes it clear that capital punishment, where it is not absolutely necessary, is sinful killing.

You seem to be looking for a loophole? Why?
 
I’m arguing on the basis of current state legislations and you’re just bashing all Dems again. I’ve resolved on voting on referendums only. Too bad we don’t have national ones.

I’m out.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Casey was a 5-4 decision. Regardless, we’re talking about ancient history. This was in 1992.
Click to expand...
Didn’t the Casey decision start to allow states to put some limits on abortion?
Babies will become viable at earlier stages, as science progresses, and thus the Casey ruling will continue to allow tighter restrictions on Abortion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top