S
sodak
Guest
I will be praying for him as President, by the virtue of the office that he holds. I will pray that God will thaw out his heart and give him wisdom, both of which he sorely needs. I will never congratulate him.
- Status
C
clmowry
Guest
Well lets here it for “left wing” logic.
I know it doesn’t matter if we vote Pro-Life because those evil republicans don’t really care anyway they are just trying to dupe us into voting for them so they can go on with their war and oil profiteering.
I am at least more inclined to accept this rationalization than the offered up alternative.
The democrat voting catholic position, at least as presented here, is that the Pro-Abortion camp is more likely to do something positive about decreasing the number of abortions than the Pro-Life camp.
You do not think that electing a super-majority of Pro-Life representatives and electing presidents that will appoint strict constitutionalist judges would result in overturning Roe-v-Wade and changing the law of the land.
Instead you take the position that we should elect those who promise to do exactly the opposite.
Makes perfect sense to me.
So which pressing issue is it that outweighs the lives of the1.2 million or so babies that will be slaughtered in the United States every year for the next 30 years because we end up with a supreme court that will “never” reverse Roe and Doe?
I guess we will get to put your theory to the test soon enough.
To paraphrase our new first lady “For the first time in my adult life I’m ashamed to be [associated with 54% of the] Catholic [population in the United States].”
Chuck
T
Teflon93
Guest
It is really something to watch people who in the past had a strong passion for civil rights on the basis that we are all created equal cling even more passionately to the notion that some people are simply disposable.
I used to wonder what it was like to live in America before the Civil War—how could people steal someone’s labor from them, steal their freedom from them, and simply make them extensions of a master’s arbitrary will?
How ironic is it that the first black President, someone who has benefitted enormously in a political sense from this nation’s tragic history (one he didn’t fully experience having not been the descendant of slaves as so many African Americans are today), would be plowing full steam ahead at extending the ugliest and most massive civil rights violation in American history?
How sad is it that a majority of those manning the one bulwark left to resist the culture of death voted for this man?
I used to wonder what it was like to live in America before the Civil War—how could people steal someone’s labor from them, steal their freedom from them, and simply make them extensions of a master’s arbitrary will?
How ironic is it that the first black President, someone who has benefitted enormously in a political sense from this nation’s tragic history (one he didn’t fully experience having not been the descendant of slaves as so many African Americans are today), would be plowing full steam ahead at extending the ugliest and most massive civil rights violation in American history?
How sad is it that a majority of those manning the one bulwark left to resist the culture of death voted for this man?
A
AgingCatholic
Guest
And what was McCain’s rating - even though he holds an intrinsically evil position on abortion and is at odds with the Church on other life issues?
When one’s faith and one’s politics are at odds, one has to decide which master one loves most.
You certainly are good at passing judgement, but you are also morally inconsistant. Like choosing masters, you have to decide if you believe what you spout, or just use it as a weapon to hurt others.
Every child is sacred, EVERY abortion is wrong. You voted for an abortionist, so if you believe Newman’s reasoning, you are offending God when you present yourself for communion.
If you deny that you voted for instrinsic evil, the sin is graver, because your cooperation becomes less remote.
If you accept that you are complicent with intrinsic evil, but argue that you did so for proportionate reasons, then the question becomes why are you willing to assign certainty to your judgement and evil to others?
Claiming to know the hearts and minds of others is a sin. Asserting moral authority in excess of the Magesterium (hence the pope) is an even graver one. The First Vatican Council would argue that doing so seperates one not just from the faithful, but from Christ. The Second Vatican Council says only that you are contradicting the rightful voice of Christ to the detriment of all…
This insistance at elevating one moral principle at the expense of all others in voting has been directly dismissed in a Doctrinal Note from Rome (see the faithfulcitizenship.org site for a link), it calls such activity “incoherent” and a “detriment to the faith”.
But why worry what Rome says if one is certain, beyond the self doubt demanded by the Catechism, that one is the true holder of the mind and will of God…
C
clmowry
Guest
A
AgingCatholic
Guest
Almost as strange as the people loudly proclaiming their moral superiority, while they direclty support instrinsic evil themselves…
I think it is because one can listen to many hours of hate speech radio during the week, with only a 10 minute homily to show the true faith for balance. If you listen to someone tell you how morally superior you are to the ‘bad’ people hour after hour, day after day, it is easy to start to believe it.
Look at your reasoning here. You are the good guy, because you only supported killing some babies. It is not like you are one of the ‘bad’ people…
Perhaps we should have two different proclamations in Mass.We can still start together, “Lord I am not worthy to recieve you but…” And end apart, I’ll use the current phrasing and you can switch to “at least I’m not one of those baby killing Obama supporters…”
You could start to keep yourself seperate, and even have your own unique rituals. You know, like the Pharisees…
I’m sorry, you seem young. When you are old like me you may see things differently. When I see someone arguing, like you, that they know God’s mind and will beyond dispute, I think of how a lifetime teaches you just how high Jesus really set the bar for each of us.
A
AgingCatholic
Guest
McCain has long held for legal abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and maternal health. These are not licit.
He also argued during his previous presidential run that overturning Roe might not be a good idea.
As far as other issues, he is at odds with Rome on war, the death penalty, euthanasia, and health care.
He supports Bush’s position on stem cell research, which is also illicit.
This is the problem with buying into rhetoric and a culture of divisiveness, we lose the ability to properly identify Catholic values.
FWIW, Palin’s public position and record in public service is very close to Biden’s (she has stated that it is not her place to push her beliefs on others). The difference is that Biden professes to accept the Catholic position, Palin, like McCain, seems to believe that abortions for maternal health are just.
S
sodak
Guest
John McCain is FAR more in line with the Church’s teaching on abortion than Obama. That is not even remotely debatable.
Correct. That is why faith trumps politics when intrinsic evil is involved.
Baloney. The church is quite clear on the subject of abortion, and Teflon93 is right in line with the Church. This is a very cut and dry topic. As for hurt, that’s caused by the evil of abortion, not criticizing it, as we must do.
Wrong again. Have you read the Catholic Bishops’ voting guide? If you don’t have a solid pro-life candidate, you choose the lesser of 2 evils.
Source? Proof?
He’s not complicit with intrinsic evil. Are you?
Have you read what you just wrote? You are at odds with Catholic teaching. It’s not elevating a moral principal. It’s voting against an intrinsic evil. And it’s very, very clear. It’s one of the few things these days that is crystal clear. And, if you are a Catholic, you are on the wrong side of this argument!
C
clmowry
Guest
T
Teflon93
Guest
Let’s ask NARAL.
Here’s their 2007 rating for Barack Obama:
prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in-congress/congressional-record-on-choice/illinois.html
100%.
Here’s their 2007 rating for John McCain:
prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in-congress/congressional-record-on-choice/arizona.html
0%.
Couldn’t be a bigger difference, could there?
This is what NARAL says about the Bush Administration’s abortion policy:
prochoiceamerica.org/issues/bush-administration/
That’s a lot more than “nothing”.
But hey, just because the leading abortion lobbyist organization disagrees with you on who’s pro-life and who’s not, no big deal, right?
So which did you decide? The Church being pro-life and abortion being the most important of her social teachings—as per the Catechism passage I quoted you and which you ignore to this point still.
This paragraph is simply inscrutable to me. I don’t see any argument or logic here. Please enlighten me.
Now John McCain’s an “abortionist”? Really?
You invoked the 8th Commandment earlier. Would you care to provide evidence that John McCain has performed abortions, or would you prefer to stop bearing false witness against him instead?
John McCain was the pro-life candidate, whom I voted for. Abortion is the “intrinsic evil”, per the Catechism. If you’d care to read it.
I supported the prolife candidate. It is those who supported the radically pro-abortion candidate—you know, the one with a perfect rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League—who are complicit in the intrinsically evil act of abortion, per Father Newman’s reasoning and the Church’s teaching. The proportion comes through moral agency—one who votes for proabortion candidates do so with less complicity than the woman seeking the abortion or the abortionist performing it.
Then stop it.
The rest is all nonsense and not worth discussion beyond noting that you should not elevate social justice or pacifism above abortion, as so many proabortion Catholics do in clear contradiction of Church teaching.
Still waiting for the honest admission that you simply do not adhere to Church teaching on abortion, AC.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Okay, just throw this on the heap of false charges. Repeating “intrinsic evil” like a mantra does not an argument make. Now that I’ve been accused of “directly supporting” this undefined “intrinsic evil” in AC’s unique formulation, let’s move on.
Better turn off NPR then, AC.
If that’s my reasoning, why don’t you quote it? Quote button’s in the lower right of each of my posts. Save us the scrollup. Quote me.
Hey, as long as we’re ignoring Church teaching on faith and morals, why NOT junk the Order of the Mass while we’re at it?
There’s a change AC can believe in!
Ah yes, the argumentum ad Phariseeum. It’s the pro-choice Catholic’s equivalent of invoking Hitler. Surely that will come.You could start to keep yourself seperate, and even have your own unique rituals. You know, like the Pharisees…
And let’s round out the mix with more condescension!
AC, when I see someone like you creating strawmen and inventing arguments you’d rather have aimed at your incoherent and unsupportable position, it just makes me sad.
You cannot square your position with Church teaching on abortion, as clearly articulated in the Catechism, and you know full well you cannot. All the rest is just noise to avoid the obvious conclusion.
Thank God for Father Newman and may you come around soon.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Once again, the Catechismccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=abortion&s=SS:
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.
and
2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
Every Catholic ought to be familiar with the Catechism. The danger of course is that in becoming so one can no longer feign ignorance of Church teaching.
It is the Church which, being the Bride of Christ, has the true moral superiority. We must follow her or repent, for she is not wrong, and Christ is always with her.
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.
and
2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
Every Catholic ought to be familiar with the Catechism. The danger of course is that in becoming so one can no longer feign ignorance of Church teaching.
It is the Church which, being the Bride of Christ, has the true moral superiority. We must follow her or repent, for she is not wrong, and Christ is always with her.
D
DebChris
Guest
There is grass roots activism. I write to my congressmen with the amendment that I wrote when Roe v. Wade was decided.
It does recognize less than black and white situations such as Triage and hostage taking. “Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect the life and dignity of the individual from the moment of conception.”
I have friends who spend time at the local abortion clinic every week. Mostly they pray, but they are also there for any woman willing to listen. My bishop also prays in front of clinics. Over 800 people took part in the recent annual Life Chain, including myself.
The official Catholic stance (source: The Philosophy of Life) regarding therapeutic abortion is that it is acceptable when both the life of the mother and the life of the child are in danger. Without the mother, the child cannot live. The most common example is a tubal pregnancy. The child must be taken in order for the mother to survive.
When asked point blank when life begins, McCain answered “at conception.” This is the Catholic position.
R
romclev
Guest
What Catholics must do in the discussion about abortion is to convince honest and sincere Protestants, Jews and other Catholics that life begins at conception and NOT at birth. Unless and until you succeed in doing that, you will have no success in banning abortion in the election arena or the American courts.
A
AgingCatholic
Guest
It is only beyond debate if we decide to be pick and choose Catholics. Consider, for a moment, what the Catholic teaching on the right to life is. It is every stage, every condition (Christifideles Laici).
It is politically expedient to constantly substitute one example of attacks on human life, abortion, for the teaching as a whole, but doing so is neither licit or coherent (CDF Doctrinal Note The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 2002, #4). You cannot argue that abortion is so important that you can attempt to politically redress it at the expense of other fundamental moral principles, Rome has expressly stated that such reasoning is flawed (see last reference) and a possible detriment to the faith as a whole. In addition, the USCCB has stressed this, by quoting word from word from the Doctrinal Note in its paper on Faithful Citizenship (current edition) for Catholics.
Bottom line, you argue that abortion trumps all other issues you are at odds with the Church.
Next, look at the Catechism quotes provided by Teflon, direct abortion is never licit, this was declared as an infallible teaching in Evangelium Vitae. The questions regarding exceptions for maternal life were settled by Holy Tribunal in 1889, and the teaching was reiterated in the CDFs document on Procured Abortions (mid 70’s, search CDF Procured Abortion and it will pop right up).
John McCain supports these exceptions, so, using the explanation in Veritatis Splendor, we can safely conclude that John McCain’s position on abortion is intrinsically evil.
Returning to the USCCB’s document, you will find that Catholics may “never” vote for a candidate because of a candidate’s intrinsically evil position, doing so would make them partially responsible for the evil, it would be “direct” cooperation. If you vote for John McCain because of his position on abortion, you are at odds with the Church (the USCCB position is bolstered by the Vatican’s Doctrinal Note and Evangelium Vitae, it is never licit for any Catholic to support an attack on human life in voting).
A vote for either presidential candidate is only licit if the Catholic is exercising proportional reasons in good faith and in accordance with the guidelines of the Church for such decisions. This isn’t a gray area, it is black and white. Returning to the Rome document, it stresses that some issues are fundamental and inalienable rights that “do not permit exception”. Pope Benedict was clearer still in Sacramentum Caritatis (89?), the principles are “not negotiable”, compromising on these puts one’s own salvation at risk.
This makes it even more essential that an intrinsically evil position only be supported indirectly and reluctantly.
Now, let’s return to your statement. Pope Benedict has publicly stated that climate change, on the basis of science, is a right to life issue. Considering that it directly effects the duration and quality of life for billions of people, this is a no brainer. In his visit to the US Pope Benedict stated, more than once, that poverty is, inarguably a life issue, not just because it is tied to the inalienable rights of the human person, upon which our right to life is based, but because it prematurely ends life. Children in hunger in the US jumped 50%, to 700,000 last year, if children don’t get enough food, it is, again, a no brainer.
Direct euthanasia is, infallibly, evil. But John McCain joined President Bush in making it easier for hospitals to deny hydration and nutrition to PVS patients on the basis of their ability to pay. The CDF has noted that, in principle, removal of hydration and nutrition is direct euthanasia. In addition, John McCain voted against funding for access to extraordinary medical means for brain damaged vets. In its declaration on Euthanasia, the CDF made it clear that this decision belongs with the patient. This is reiterated in the Catechism.
Since we are supposed to avoid all attacks on human life, every Catholic must, in good conscience, consider all this factors. Every Catholic MUST follow the certainty of his/her moral conscience. To do otherwise would mean damnation. But all Catholics MUST ALSO remain aware of the fallibility of their individual moral conscience (CCC 1790-1794).
If, as you and Teflon appear to be doing, attack fellow Catholics by asserting that your moral conscience is inarguable correct, you are attacking their moral duty and ignoring the direct instructions of the Church. In addition, you are disregarding the Church’s understanding of the 8th Commandment and our complete duty to it (CCC 2477-2478).
Returning to the USCCB’s document, which was given, by Bishop approval and instruction to the majority of parishes in the US, and we will find that the final moral judgement for proportionate reasons applications lies in the hands of individual Catholics (#36, #37).
So, when you and Teflon say that the matter is inarguable, the common interpretation would be that you are asserting moral authority in excess of the Mother Church and disputing the delegation of moral responsibility made by her. In addition to general dissent and disobedience, this is deeply, deeply heretical. The Vicar of Christ is the undisputed moral leader of the Church and his leadership must be shown religious assent of mind and will (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, #25), this is reiterated in the Universal and local Catechisms.
I can’t spell it out any clearer, we are talking about pretty specific directives from the Church. If you are only picking and choosing a few paragraphs, you are not being obedient and dutiful.
A
AgingCatholic
Guest
This is the smartest thing I’ve read today. We live in a secular democracy, about 85% of the population (including 40% of Church attending Catholics) believes in some degree of legalized abortion. If only a small sliver of the public accepts our absolute belief, it is impossible to get it into law.
We have to change people’s hearts and minds. But we keep eroding our moral authority when we elevate abortion to the point where we use it as an excuse to justify other attacks on life, then turn around and compromise on even abortion.
A
AgingCatholic
Guest
You might want to look at the Directives for Caregivers, direct abortion is never permitted, even to save the life of the mother. In the US, many Catholic hospitals argue that terminating ectopic pregnancies is not direct abortion, but an unintended side effect of treatment, but this is a theological argument, not the Church’s. So far the Church has not corrected this application, but it is worth noting that more restrictive rules are used in countries with Catholic majorities and the Church seemed to rule such terminations illicit by decree in 1902.
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on abortion has some good background information on the subject. The Directives can be found on the USCCB site. Direct abortion is prohibited in general, and again in the specific case of ectopic gestations.
If you want more material, let me know. I do not follow it as closely now that I am retired, but still get most the journals.
John McCain also has said that abortion is acceptable and should be kept legal for rape, incest, and maternal life. These are all held to be intrinsically evil attacks on innocent human life.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Please understand the political froces at work. The Republican Party has since 1980 been pro-life. However, it is a coalition of politicians many of who are pro-choice but who to win is willing to let the pro-life plank remain in the platform. But they are not happy about and when free to do so, like Senator Snow, will not support any measure that restricts the abortion right. This is why we got a Souter, a liar who concealled his true opinion to get on the supreme court. So the Republican is divicded on the issued.The rub is, is there a plausible pro-life alternative?
The Republicans have been using it as a rallying issue for decades but, after they’ve controlled the government for years, it is still with us. (it was mostly Republican appointees to the court that decided for Roe in the first place.) Some of them are undoubtedly genuine but I often wonder if some are pro-life just for the votes.
A president can do little about it. Even if Roe is overturned it will fall back to the individual states.
The tragedy is that it is politically popular.
The current Supreme Court is loathed to overturn precedent and a constitutional amendment will not pass in the current climate.
I don’t know what to do.
The Democratic notion of reducing the numbers through poverty reduction and education sounds like it may be a start. But I haven’t studied the statistics yet.
But just as the Republicans have remained divided, so the Democrats have become ever more united in favor of pro-choice. Nye, pro-abortion. The party is full of liberal Catholics who have become convinced that abortion is a “human right.”
Convinced, maybe, by priests and nuns who believe the same thing, who were enraged by Humanae Vitae and still rejects its central argument even though the facts seems to fit the prediction of Paul VI that contraception would completely change the western view of marriage. Allied with secularists who have a French rather than an Anglo-American view of separation of church and state. There is a small band of pro-life Catholics, swollent by the party’s need to win votes in conservative areas, but much smaller than in 1976 when the Party became the party of Roe v. Wade. My hope is that these
blue-dog Democrats will join with pro-life Republicans to block such a radical law as FOCA. But if they are few in the House they are almost non-existent in the Senate.
S
sodak
Guest
Absolutely false.
You’re the one who is doing this.
Abortion, along with euthanasia, are intrinsically evil. They do trump other issues, which may or may not be evil depending upon the circumstances, such as war or capital punishment. This is a consistent teaching of the USCCB and the Catholic Church. You are absolutely wrong.
If what you are saying is true, John McCain’s position on abortion is FAR LESS EVIL than Obama’s.
Wrong again. The USCCB has consistently taught that when facing the choice of 2 evils, you pick the less evil. So if voting for John McCain is cooperating with evil, what would a vote for Obama be? Answer that.
Yes, you finally got something right. So proportionately, the only way a Catholic could vote would be for the pro-life candidate who allowed limited exceptions, v.s. a pro-abortion candidate who wants unlimited access to abortion.
S
sodak
Guest
And Obama stood with McCain on the euthanasia issue. So they are equal here. McCain still wins on abortion.
Climate change is a science that is very much still open to scientific debate as to the cause. Nothing yet has been decided and agreed upon. As to hunger, not sure what your point is here…
Seems to me that you are doing most of the attacking here, as I’ve shown in my previous post. The Church’s position on abortion is crystal clear, and no amount of obfuscation on your part will ever change that.
And by the way, I’m probably as old as you, and most likely older. Not that it makes a difference, but you seem to treat people differently based on your perception of their age…
Wrong again. The Church has spoken, and you can ignore it’s instruction at your own peril. We are reiterating the USCCB’s position on an intrinsic evil. There is no wiggle room here. The only disobedience here is yours. It’s quite amusing to watch you try to justify it…
Why don’t you try and see what Pope Benedict has said about abortion, euthanasia, and other intrinsic evils? Then come back and try to argue about who the heretics and dissenters are.
The directives from the Church are indeed crystal clear on this issue. You are trying your best to cloud the issue, when it’s been settled for centuries. Literally.
- Status