W
wynnejj
Guest
I assumed a Watergate reference and never trust Repubs again. I thought it a good opening to poke fun at the old “It’s Bush’s fault” to suggest “Get Over It.”
- Status
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
Meee-owww!
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
Thanks, Rence!
P
ProVobis
Guest
Watergate was a distraction but if that’s all people remember about Nixon, then it’s no wonder the Repubs get so much glory. I’m referring to his three appointees to the Supreme Court who made Roe vs Wade the law of the land.
And if you think it can be simply overturned, then I suggest these reads.
meehanreports.com/blackmun.html
legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp
A lot of opinions have to be delved through.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
W
wynnejj
Guest
Yeah, and you will get educated beyond your intelligence. Whether Roe v Wade is overturned is not the issue. The issue is more about whether Catholics are who they say they are. It’s moral principle in action. One in five of truly the least of our brethren are destroyed and, Catholics try to sell the “Oh, well.” philosophy and then try to sell the “But look at the benefits” package. And then we are charged to evangelize with cognitive dissonance the idea that certain serious sins that human values put little weight on are actually serious sins against God … yeah right.
Perry Mason would say that he objects to the testimony on the grounds that it is Irrelevant, Immaterial and Incompetent.
Papal Nuncio would say that he objects to the testimony on the grounds that it is Undecipherable, Ambiguous and Unsuccessful … if I understand his take on the “social justice cure” counter-argument.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I think the 3rd party argument in this past election was false piety since it did nothing to fight the evil. It’s like the popular saying “all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” By voting for Romney I did everything in my power to try to stop Obama’s HHS mandate from happening.
W
wynnejj
Guest
It is a sad fact that we have a two party system that monopolizes the political dialogue. And in all fairness to others whom I disagree with in the final analysis of “proportional reason”, it is really hard to vote with integrity — and, it is hard to look at yourself in the morning and say … did I do the right thing? … was I true to my values?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
No, it’s not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is a dry analysis of political reality.
Sad indeed. And that is a political reality too. With a viable mutli-party ystem we might not even have this entire discussion.
I appreciate that you refuse to succumb to the simplistic black-and-white picture that others here are trying to paint, a black-and-white picture that does not correspond to political reality.
You cannot base your moral decision on an idealized picture of political reality that bends in a biased way towards where your moral inclinations are. Doing so is self-delusion.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
And, depending on circumstances, it might in fact be morally culpable.
W
wynnejj
Guest
No, it is a testimony to the spiritual life blood of the American Catholic church, You can go into almost any Catholic church in my area and not hear a prayer petition on behalf of the unborn, regardless of whether or not after many years your parish lawn has finally committed to the white crosses representing 1M of the least of our brethren slaughtered. It is a false front if the forces of Catholic dissent keep priests from engaging this problem from the pulpit via sermon and regular prayer petitions. This Dudley Do-Right response to a conveyor belt of our most vulnerable brothers in Christ headed for unremitting destruction, when confronted with the “political” reality of a switch that says Life or Social Justice is incomprehensible. The American Catholic church has gone out into the real world to evangelize and came to the conclusion “Oh well, this is reality, resistance is futile”.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Actually, Bishop Galante said the following:
(link:
lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2006/nov/06110607)
“Note that this [proportionate reasons] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions.”
Based on this, there is sufficient proportionate reason if you are convinced *) that the policies of the pro-choice candidate will result in less economic downward pressure on the middle class, and in less economic reasons for women to have abortions, and thus in practical terms (that is what it has to be all about, not theoretical blabber) the abortion rate will actually decrease, relative to the policies of the alleged pro-life candidate who otherwise will not do, or will not be able to do, anything substantial about the abortion situation directly (and we know that in practical terms the GOP has been inefficient on the legislative front, at least on the federal level).
*) Note: you can endlessly debate if such a conviction is politically justifed. Yet this is beside the point. Once the voter has this conviction, the moral implications are clear.
W
wynnejj
Guest
OK. Let’s take this analysis a little further.
Let’s say for argument sake that I totally support that one some times has to make a “hold your nose” proportionate reason voting decision where the 100% abortion rights position but is very much aligned with Catholic social doctrine on other issues. That prospects from the other camp are bleak in making any headway anyway given the cultural climate, and the “pro-life” candidate is not 100% and used to be “pro-choice”.
Now you know your “hold your nose” candidate openly 100% supports more than one “intrinsic evil”.
Here’s the $1M question … would you be materially cooperating with 100% intrinsic evil if you entered your church parking lot with a “Vote for Hold-Your-Nose” sign?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Whoa. This shows such a poor understanding of the realities of cultural permissiveness encouraging first of all fornication, via handing out contraception to poor populations in urban public schools, and second of all of the statistics of who has abortions.
“Downward pressure to have abortions???” Un. Real. In fact, ironically the pressure to engage in fornication is coming from the Democratic Party, who is committed to the distribution of contraception to underage, unmarried poor women in urban areas, and an unwritten mandate to libertine sexual practices regardless of marital status.
Fact: These underage poor women are fertile, often in single-parent households, and sporadically use contraception, whose sporadic use often results in pregnancy. Their noncommitted sperm donors usually abandon them, which results in the separation of the pregnant girl from a desire to continue her pregnancy: no commitment, no future.
Poor urban populations in this country – mostly black and Hispanic – have been exploited for decades – first by the illegal drug trade, second by the assumptions of uncontrollable adolescent sexual desire among these populations. (Pressure to distribute contraception in rich public schools is virtually nil.)
Use of contraception is not linked to abortion rates. Rather, marital status is linked to abortion rates. Guttmacher studies confirm this.
E
estesbob
Guest
Can you find a single member of the Magestrium or any church document that backs up your personal interoperation of proportionate reason?
A candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand is so morally flawed no one, should support them. The idea that they can support this slaughter because they are benevolent or compassionate or enlightened in other areas is specious and is no way supported by the Church.
People have been rationalizing supporting evil since Cain killed Abel. The idea that one can support evil as long as they have convinced themselves it is not evil is another idea that has no basis in Church teaching.We our REQUIRED to form our conscience based on the teachings of the Church. Twisting church teaching to rationalize supporting intrinsic evil may very well mitigate the seriousness of the action but in no way can be justified.
E
estesbob
Guest
In the 5 years I counseled at a CPC I can recall only one instance of a woman who had a positive pregnancy test who was NOT using contraception. Pope Paul the VI predicted what the contraceptive society would lead to. Now that his predictions have become fact people blame the church. go figure.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I believe fornication is still illegal in some states and adultery illegal in most states. I’m not sure if it’s the Democratic Party per se which is pushing to remove what they call “antiquated” laws. IMO it’s the ones who just basically have been born into permissive environments. Conservatives have occasionally been known to “slip” into immoral behavior, to say the least. The low percentage of virgins among the unmarrieds says a lot about our society in general.
B
BroomWagon
Guest
Also, not to forget exactly who was involved in the Democrat party in the past and not all that distant past in fighting against Civil Rights in the '60s, Sheriff Bull Connor, etc.
W
wynnejj
Guest
I vote this best paragraph of this thread.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You’ll find a lot of resistance against this argument because it might seem counterintuitive. But it’s good to consider anything that might reduce the number of abortions, regardless of the ways it’s done, if abortions are the focal issue. If it’s all about laws or what gets your party into power, all bets are off.
- Status