May I ask a Question?

[MikeWM]

Geldain:

Many, including myself, consider the abomination known as partial-birth abortion to be infanticide.

I’d agree it is an abomination, though I wouldn’t technically call it infanticide. I prefer to keep the phrase ‘infanticide’ for what it traditionally means - and, a la Peter Singer, as a logical thing to allow given we allow abortions. Making that connection adds a strong string to the bow of the secular arguments against abortion.

Good question. I’ve never been able to understand the notion it’s okay to kill these babies because the father raped the mother or because the baby was created via incest–cuz’ it’s God who creates us all. A baby is a baby is a baby, from where I sit.

Agreed.

Mike

 

[Mijoy2]

Vaclav:

I’ve read a number of threads on here that seem to degenerate into a real nasty verbal war between “liberals” and “conservatives.” .

I’ve noticed the same thing. I’ve also noticed (within the forums I most frequent) that the republican vs. democrat issue seems to be the topic that lends itself least to charitable behavior. In terms of numbers it is largely one-sided.

I can understand how the emotion surrounding the issue of abortion can cause people to forget thier attempts at being charitable. What I have more trouble with are other issues.

I find it amazing that people can respectfully discuss diametericaly opposed issues in theology such as theism vs. atheism, salvation controversies, real presence and so forth but you bring up wether we should be in Iraq and you better be wearing your helmet.

Welcome home! There is a lot to be learned from these forums. I’d suggest just avoiding the political issues and the more political forums and visiting other forums of interest.

 

[Vaclav]

Thanks again for the replies.

Someone pointed out that in the U.K. it is different on issues of conscience. That’s true. Most issues, such as abortion, would not have a party line in Britain. Each M.P. would likely get a free vote and be allowed to vote on such a bill before Parliament however they see fit. I rather like that system. It tends to avoid religious issues being used or paid lip service by some politicians.

A book on Mary I really liked is called The Reed of God by Caryll Houselander. I am not sure of the correct spelling for the author.

It is very good, easy to read, and only about 130 pages. It is very spiritual.

Another older book but that is 500 pages is called the Glories of Mary by St Alphonsus Ligouri and it is harder to read.

For Marian study, may I recommend a classic text from the ‘history of doctrines’ perspective by Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Sheed and Ward, London, 1965.

Thanks. I hope I can find these. Interestingly, I’ve found honoring Mary to be one of the most beautiful aspects of Catholicism, whereas being a Protestant it is generally one of the most feared.

The current Pope wrote a book about Mary while Cardinal Ratzinger. Is it of any account?

Good question. I’ve never been able to understand the notion it’s okay to kill these babies because the father raped the mother or because the baby was created via incest–cuz’ it’s God who creates us all. A baby is a baby is a baby, from where I sit.

From a religious perspective it is nonsensical and I agree completely.

Politically it is simply more palatable to the public. That is precisely my point about voting for some of these politicians. I think many of them use these principles when it is to their advantage. It is political expedience and yes, both parties do it.

 

[johnnykins]

Della:

You’re quite right. We aren’t concerned with having a tea party here. We are interested at getting at the truth, and sometimes people just don’t want to hear it no matter how nicely it is put (not speaking of you, however ).

And I put it to you, that by voting for a third party candidate who didn’t have chance in heck of winning, you voted against the person whose ideas came the closest to your own who did have a chance of winning. Think about that and see if it isn’t the plain truth of the matter.

I voted my conscience. I was informed. I did not vote for any candidate who as near as I could tell held any position against Church teaching. I’m very comfortable with my vote. You should back off.

 

[Troy7]

koda:

I don’t know, this is the same guy who made that totally tasteless joke about looking under the rug for the WMD, and we got that on video.

I know you are a good person and that you try to be fair, but I also realize that it is impossible to tarnish this man in your eyes; you just ignore anything and everything that makes him look even slightly bad, or even human. But don’t lump those of us that don’t agree with you as ingorant fools who can be taken in by any story because we find things credible that you don’t.

I completely agree with you. It is sad that the facts are right there and still certain folks refuse to admit these things.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Vaclav:

Interestingly, I’ve found honoring Mary to be one of the most beautiful aspects of Catholicism,

B]whereas being a Protestant it is generally one of the most feared.

Hi Vaclav,

Yuu mentioned that protestants are afraid of Mary. What is that all about?

Thanks

Vatican2rocks!

 

[Fitz]

MikeWM:

With this you can see what the ‘official’ advice is on voting. It is a complicated issue. No mainstream political party in either the USA or the UK fits the Catholic mold perfectly.

Mike

I agree, and you have to be particularly careful of what many of our Catholic politicians say and do. They often leave their religion at home when they go to work. Many are more culturally Catholic and they don’t follow orthodox Catholicism.

 

[Irene]

Della,

I’ve been thinking of creating a third party (in the U.S.) that would have Catholic teaching on life issues as its platform. Are you saying that this would be improper, because none of the party’s candidates would have a chance of winning elections, at least initially?

What about the practice that has been mentioned on the forum of writing in “Mickey Mouse” or another fictional character?

 

[buffalo]

Irene:

Della,

I’ve been thinking of creating a third party (in the U.S.) that would have Catholic teaching on life issues as its platform. Are you saying that this would be improper, because none of the party’s candidates would have a chance of winning elections, at least initially?

What about the practice that has been mentioned on the forum of writing in “Mickey Mouse” or another fictional character?

If this third party takes a number of election cycles to grow to a point where it is a contender, and the culture of death Dems pass more anti-life laws is it a good thing?

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

If this third party takes a number of election cycles to grow to a point where it is a contender, and the culture of death Dems pass more anti-life laws is it a good thing?

I tend toward what I call “moral pragmatism.” I define that as, “If you are morally impelled to act, you are morally impelled to choose a course of action that has the best chance of succeeding.”

Third parties have a very dismal record in American politics. Only one has actually succeeded, and that resulted in the Civil War.

I think our Catholic duty to vote and participate in the political process imposes a moral obligation upon us to be knowledgeable about the political process and understand the effects of voting for third parties with little chances of winning, or writing in “Mickey Mouse” on the ballot.