I did not indict any priest. But the fact is there may be some priests that do pass off their opinion as Catholic teaching. If you happen to find one, that does not prove your point. You need to cite an authoritative source of Catholic teaching to prove your point.LeafByNiggle:
Such an indictment of any priest that disagrees is very uncharitable.
As I said to Ridgerunner, private efforts are great, but they can only go so far. It is like claiming in 1860 that the underground railroad is enough. We don’t need to end slavery at the governmental level.LeafByNiggle:
Are you serious? What about all the private agencies and volunteer work that is being done for homeless and pregnant women and their children? Really? My working in a homeless shelter means I’m “essentially” ignoring the very people I am feeding?
I did not specifically mention helping the poor. I mentioned injustice. Those who refuse to have our government correct injustice are ignoring the victims of injustice.
That actually was my point. Ridgerunner said he believed personal efforts are likely to do more than governmental bandaids that don’t really go to the root of some of the major causes. He was, of course, referring to problems other than abortion. For when it comes to abortion, it seems governmental action is the preferred solution, since it is talked about more than any other solution. So my suggestion of relying exclusively on personal efforts to oppose abortion was not a serious suggestion, but was meant to show the weakness in the corresponding position on non-abortion issues. For the record, I too believe abortion should be made illegal eventually. But in the meantime there are things government can right now to reduce the incentive for abortion. I think those efforts will be more effective at paving the way to eventually outlawing abortion. First you have to get the people on your side. Start from the bottom and work your way up, instead of starting at the top and imposing a law that most of the people do not want.LeafByNiggle:
The same logic could be applied to rape, theft, assault, etc.
Perhaps all of the laws should be put aside in favor whatever twisted logic this is.
You yourself wrote:LeafByNiggle:
No one has argued this.
You are making up straw man arguments.
So it is not a strawman, but exactly what you said.
Here’s Leaf’s rationalization for participating in killing the unborn:
Corrupt? What money has his son gotten for doing nothing using his influence? Has he destroyed 30,000 subpoenaed emails? Has he taken $150,000,000 from Russian oligarchs to give them 20% of American uranium? Has he looted the goldfields of Haiti?
The CO2 content of the atmosphere was once 10 times what it is now, and life thrived; probably more than now. On the other hand, during the Little Ice Age, not all that long ago, the CO2 content dropped to within about 70 ppm of the level at which all plant life (and therefore all life) would die. A narrow escape for mankind. Might as well go back to the Martian theory and keep killing children to keep them at bay.
From the article, it appears he took it up with the other bishops, who rejected his view.
Refusing the vote the way you want me to is not “participating” in killing.drcube:
Here’s Leaf’s rationalization for participating in killing the unborn:
As others have noted already, the point is debatable - not that I wish to debate it at this time as you are trying to do. I mention the point only to show that this view is not prohibited by Church teaching. The innocence of Trump is not taught by any Church official. It is a matter of prudential judgement. The Church does not condemn someone for believing that Trump is the most corrupt President and a threat to the nation. The Church is neutral on that question. So despite the fact that you may think that only a moron would believe that or despite the fact that you may believe one who states this is being insincere and just looking for a way to support abortion, it is an allowed position to have.
Once more you are trying to argue the merits of the position that global warming is a threat to human life instead of recognizing that those who do believe it is such a threat are allowed to hold that belief according to Catholic teaching. The Church is neutral on that question too.
This is one of the many arguments for voting against pro-choice democrats and republicans and the democratic party that supports abortion up until the moment of birth (New York bill). The party that doesn’t condemn comments supportive of infanticide (Ralph Northam & Pete Buttigieg).
No, not exactly what I said.
Another example of your lack of understanding of Church teaching as the Church does not characterize it this way.
And, here again, is mostly false information and I believe you suggest it solely to make the false claim that those who support pro-choice politicians are complicit in abortion because it would certainly make you, as a Republican supporter, responsible for a lot of evil in the world.
When was the CO2 level ten times as high?
It seems like you have issues with Bishop McElroy’s statements and would take any person who takes Bishop McElroy’s words to heart and supports someone who is pro-choice to be complicit with abortion. Perhaps you should take the battle to him. After all, he is the bishop that gives this site the right to use the name “Catholic”.
You always ignore the part about there having to be a “proportionate” evil to be avoided by voting for the pro-abortion candidate. What evil do the Dems wish to eliminate that’s as serious as killing a million children per year? Might as well admit it, the Dem party is fine with the mass killing but since it promises (but probably won’t keep, because it never does) to achieve some social good by spending others’ money, that excuses the killing.
It’s not my theology. It’s Pope Benedict’s. You just can’t rationalize supporting murder by saying some benefit might come of it. It’s like some German in 1942 directing Jews into the boxcars to Auschwitz saying “but Hitler cured the unemployment, and besides, I never killed a Jew myself.”
His view was rejected by the other bishops, so perhaps you really need to take your argument to them instead of challenging me to argue with McElroy as if somehow he speaks for the Church in this matter. He doesn’t.
More than once, it appears, even during at least one period of glaciation. It was at a lower level, but still somewhat higher than now for thousands of years.
That is not what is at stake. We can elect Republicans until the cows come home and still have legal abortion. If fact it is likely that is exactly what would happen. The promise is a roll of the dice.
No, I didn’t ignore ‘proportionate’ and neither did Bishop McElroy. I pointed out a few examples. You made arguments based on falsehoods that these are not proportionate.
No, it’s your theology. You are taking Pope Benedict’s point and misinterpreting it to support your own personal views. You ignore the evils propagating by politicians you support. You need to propagate the falsehoods that your side is pure so that you can take no responsibilities for the evils they propagate and blame abortion on anyone that votes for Democrats. Of course, it’s all very convenient, but it’s not Church teaching.
Was it? I haven’t seen another bishop directly contradict it. I only see an offhand comment that a few bishops wouldn’t agree with it. I’d like to see some more direct statements myself.
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you make multiple posts to respond to a single post. So, it was 10x higher, when? 450 million years ago. How many people were there? None. So, if the level of CO2 goes up, should we take data from 450 million years ago to determine how many people would be able to survive in this world? If so, the answer would be none and 8 billion people >> the number of abortions in the US.
Thanks for the link.
Asd to these other times of high CO2 level, I will ask again:
Bp McElroy’s proposition was rejected by the other bishops. Why do you ignore that? You pointed out no examples of proportionate evils to be avoided by supporting abortion politicians. Your “climate change will kill us all” argument is speculative at very best since CO2 levels have been much higher without killing anything as near as anyone can tell. Death of a child by disembowelment is immediate and certain.
A bit better than a roll of the dice. Repub lawmakers have achieved quite a few restrictions on abortion. Trump has refused to use taxpayer ;money to pay for them abroad, has appointed what appear to be two prolife justices, allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood, and has allowed religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor to refuse to provide for abortifacients. Not perfect, but everything has been against the determined opposition of the Democrats, every step of the way. It’s a struggle.