E
estesbob
Guest
Free contraception and raising taxes on other people
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Earlier today I wrote a check to a pro-life org stipulating “To be used to assist pregnant women in distress. Not to be used to promote, attack, or support any political candidate or legislation.”
Abortions have been around since Cicero who also condemned it. What good has it done to politicize it? All the presidents and ex-presidents since Eisenhower (Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Carter, etc) should be ashamed for exploiting the issue for political gain.
Abortions have been around since Cicero who also condemned it. What good has it done to politicize it? All the presidents and ex-presidents since Eisenhower (Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Carter, etc) should be ashamed for exploiting the issue for political gain.
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
Thank you very much, qui est ce.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
*Proportionate reasons or ‘other morally grave reasons’ ) to vote for a pro-choice candidate
*) wording USCCB guide
I have morally grave reasons to vote for a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate only if I can trust that s/he is serious about his/her stance and that in practice, not just in theory, s/he will (be able to) do something about it. From past evidence I have no reason to trust the Republican Party on much, and certainly not on the issue of abortion, at least not on the federal level.
Republican-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing:
Link:
gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm
Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
**Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land. **It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.
Indeed, in Casey a Supreme Court with eight out of nine Republican-appointed justices has in effect re-affirmed Roe V. Wade. So if a Supreme Court with eight Republican-appointed justices does not overturn Wade, on what rational grounds should I hope that the next few conservative appointments will change that? Give me a break, don’t be fooled folks!
Inaction and lying by pro-life politicians (and inaction by appointed Supreme Court justices) alone could be morally grave reasons, and proportionate reasons, enough to neutralize the theoretically morally grave reasons of not voting for a pro-choice candidate, especially when you do not vote for that candidate because of the pro-choice stance (only the ‘because of’ would be formal cooperation with evil, c.f. Cardinal Ratzinger, USCCB).
Yet then there can also be positive morally grave reasons, and proportionate reasons, to vote for a pro-choice candidate, when you do not vote for that candidate because of the pro-choice stance.
For example, if you are convinced that the policies of the pro-choice candidate will result in less economic downward pressure on the middle class, and thus in less economic reasons for women to have abortions, then it is a reasonable assumption that 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.
If on top of that the other social policies of the pro-choice candidate are also judged to be considered better and even life-saving, and more in line with Catholic teaching, than the social policies of the alleged pro-life candidate, and/or if the pro-choice candidate is less of a warmonger than the pro-life candidate, then the issue of sufficient other grave moral reasons, or proportionate reasons, becomes a no-brainer for me, and for many other Catholics who sincerely strive to be in line with Catholic teaching.
In summary, both the neutralizing and the positive morally grave reasons combined are more than enough for me to overcome the mere theoretical promise by the GOP to do enough about abortion, a theoretical promise that in practice has failed miserably. If I had good reasons to believe that on the legislative front anything substantial about abortion in this country (especially on the federal level) would happen by voting GOP, this would change things. But I have no such reasons, or at the very least, no sufficient reasons, to believe that.
Don’t forget: the moral premise that you should vote for a pro-life candidate must obviously be based on the assumption that s/he will in reality act on his/her stance in a sufficient fashion. If a candidate merely says to be pro-life, that in itself is not a sufficient moral reason to vote for that candidate. You have to look at the issues practically, and not from the naive standpoint of listening to some magical words by some political Pied Pipers and then running after them. After all, we are followers of Jesus Christ, not followers of The Pied Piper. Catholics are not required to leave their brains outside the voting booth. In fact, they are morally obliged not to do so.
*) wording USCCB guide
I have morally grave reasons to vote for a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate only if I can trust that s/he is serious about his/her stance and that in practice, not just in theory, s/he will (be able to) do something about it. From past evidence I have no reason to trust the Republican Party on much, and certainly not on the issue of abortion, at least not on the federal level.
Republican-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing:
Link:
gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm
Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
**Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land. **It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.
Indeed, in Casey a Supreme Court with eight out of nine Republican-appointed justices has in effect re-affirmed Roe V. Wade. So if a Supreme Court with eight Republican-appointed justices does not overturn Wade, on what rational grounds should I hope that the next few conservative appointments will change that? Give me a break, don’t be fooled folks!
Inaction and lying by pro-life politicians (and inaction by appointed Supreme Court justices) alone could be morally grave reasons, and proportionate reasons, enough to neutralize the theoretically morally grave reasons of not voting for a pro-choice candidate, especially when you do not vote for that candidate because of the pro-choice stance (only the ‘because of’ would be formal cooperation with evil, c.f. Cardinal Ratzinger, USCCB).
Yet then there can also be positive morally grave reasons, and proportionate reasons, to vote for a pro-choice candidate, when you do not vote for that candidate because of the pro-choice stance.
For example, if you are convinced that the policies of the pro-choice candidate will result in less economic downward pressure on the middle class, and thus in less economic reasons for women to have abortions, then it is a reasonable assumption that 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.
If on top of that the other social policies of the pro-choice candidate are also judged to be considered better and even life-saving, and more in line with Catholic teaching, than the social policies of the alleged pro-life candidate, and/or if the pro-choice candidate is less of a warmonger than the pro-life candidate, then the issue of sufficient other grave moral reasons, or proportionate reasons, becomes a no-brainer for me, and for many other Catholics who sincerely strive to be in line with Catholic teaching.
In summary, both the neutralizing and the positive morally grave reasons combined are more than enough for me to overcome the mere theoretical promise by the GOP to do enough about abortion, a theoretical promise that in practice has failed miserably. If I had good reasons to believe that on the legislative front anything substantial about abortion in this country (especially on the federal level) would happen by voting GOP, this would change things. But I have no such reasons, or at the very least, no sufficient reasons, to believe that.
Don’t forget: the moral premise that you should vote for a pro-life candidate must obviously be based on the assumption that s/he will in reality act on his/her stance in a sufficient fashion. If a candidate merely says to be pro-life, that in itself is not a sufficient moral reason to vote for that candidate. You have to look at the issues practically, and not from the naive standpoint of listening to some magical words by some political Pied Pipers and then running after them. After all, we are followers of Jesus Christ, not followers of The Pied Piper. Catholics are not required to leave their brains outside the voting booth. In fact, they are morally obliged not to do so.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
The following website (written in 2008) makes very good points about Republican reality vs. promises:
constitutionpartyva.com/fears.php
Fear of Court Appointments
Conservatives fear that an opportunity to appoint conservative judges will be lost if they don’t vote for the “more viable” major party candidate. However, Republican Supreme Court appointees gave the country Roe v. Wade and then a court of eight GOP-appointed judges (five by Reagan and Bush) strengthened it in 1992. The same court has rendered many other liberal rulings. Future appointments promise to be no better.
The Republican-led Senate confirmation rate of federal judges has been dismal. Clinton’s 357 judges so far (with an “opposition” Senate for six years) leave him just 21 shy of Reagan’s two-term appointment record, while Reagan had a Senate of his own party for only two years. Since becoming the majority, Republicans have handed Clinton a 228-1 judicial appointment run. Republicans demonstrate their low value of court appointments by repeatedly using multiple court confirmations as bargaining chips in exchange for positions of minor bureaucratic nominations (yes, nominations, not guaranteed confirmations). The Senate confirmed ultra-liberal and pro-abort Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by a vote of 97–0. Not a single “no” vote could be mustered from the most “conservative” GOP senators!
Fear of the Truth
Conservatives are loathe to believe the obvious – their party has deserted them. They are like an abused wife who cannot leave her husband because he might commit suicide and it would be “her fault.” That if only he had the right conditions he would improve his behavior.
Conservatives have been conditioned to believe the lie that if only the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House, things would be so much different, that suddenly they would begin to hold legislation to a constitutional standard and hold each other accountable to their platform (now, that hope has been proven vain). To believe that the GOP truly has conservative values and not just a conservative (but ignored) platform, one must never look at the record of their actions.
This statement does not refer to the times when the GOP has passively stood by as the liberal agenda was enacted. It sees behind those few small victories that are given to conservatives as bones to keep them complacent. This statement is about active collaboration with liberals. This fear of the truth permeates even those who make a profession of research. The National Right to Life supported Senator Bob Dole, yet he never once voted against a pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee. Twenty-eight Republicans who the National Right to Life Committee says voted 100% pro-life in 1999 supported Mary McLaughlin to the U.S. District Court. She received a 1998 award from the ACLU for her pro-abortion activism.
Following are just a few examples which are so indicative of the real values of the GOP that to consider the GOP a morally acceptable option for governing requires one to refuse to believe the truth.
Conservatives are supposed to be mollified by the GOP’s bringing the ban on Partial Birth Abortions to vote repeatedly. What we are conveniently NOT reminded of is that each time the PBA ban has failed to override the Clinton vetoes, the margin has been less than the number of Republicans voting with the President. In other words, had the Republicans made their members toe the line on this most extreme example of barbarism, it would have passed.
Not only would the GOP not demand adherence to the party platform on this issue, but the GOP refused to stop sending campaign donations to candidates who supported PBA (the vote wasn’t even close). Henry Hyde’s support of G. W. Bush is supposed to allay fear that Bush may be no more pro-life than his father, but Hyde’s reputation as a solid pro-lifer was used to keep money flowing to pro-abort GOPers.
Does anyone think G. W. Bush is more conservative than Reagan (who despite his pro-life rhetoric nominated two pro-abort judges to the Supreme Court)? Bush does not believe that unborn babies have a right to life. He says he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. In other words, who lives and who dies is a political decision. There is not a right to life in the mind or heart of Bush, who opposed fellow Texan Tim Lambert’s resolution to defund PBA candidates.
constitutionpartyva.com/fears.php
Fear of Court Appointments
Conservatives fear that an opportunity to appoint conservative judges will be lost if they don’t vote for the “more viable” major party candidate. However, Republican Supreme Court appointees gave the country Roe v. Wade and then a court of eight GOP-appointed judges (five by Reagan and Bush) strengthened it in 1992. The same court has rendered many other liberal rulings. Future appointments promise to be no better.
The Republican-led Senate confirmation rate of federal judges has been dismal. Clinton’s 357 judges so far (with an “opposition” Senate for six years) leave him just 21 shy of Reagan’s two-term appointment record, while Reagan had a Senate of his own party for only two years. Since becoming the majority, Republicans have handed Clinton a 228-1 judicial appointment run. Republicans demonstrate their low value of court appointments by repeatedly using multiple court confirmations as bargaining chips in exchange for positions of minor bureaucratic nominations (yes, nominations, not guaranteed confirmations). The Senate confirmed ultra-liberal and pro-abort Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by a vote of 97–0. Not a single “no” vote could be mustered from the most “conservative” GOP senators!
Fear of the Truth
Conservatives are loathe to believe the obvious – their party has deserted them. They are like an abused wife who cannot leave her husband because he might commit suicide and it would be “her fault.” That if only he had the right conditions he would improve his behavior.
Conservatives have been conditioned to believe the lie that if only the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House, things would be so much different, that suddenly they would begin to hold legislation to a constitutional standard and hold each other accountable to their platform (now, that hope has been proven vain). To believe that the GOP truly has conservative values and not just a conservative (but ignored) platform, one must never look at the record of their actions.
This statement does not refer to the times when the GOP has passively stood by as the liberal agenda was enacted. It sees behind those few small victories that are given to conservatives as bones to keep them complacent. This statement is about active collaboration with liberals. This fear of the truth permeates even those who make a profession of research. The National Right to Life supported Senator Bob Dole, yet he never once voted against a pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee. Twenty-eight Republicans who the National Right to Life Committee says voted 100% pro-life in 1999 supported Mary McLaughlin to the U.S. District Court. She received a 1998 award from the ACLU for her pro-abortion activism.
Following are just a few examples which are so indicative of the real values of the GOP that to consider the GOP a morally acceptable option for governing requires one to refuse to believe the truth.
Conservatives are supposed to be mollified by the GOP’s bringing the ban on Partial Birth Abortions to vote repeatedly. What we are conveniently NOT reminded of is that each time the PBA ban has failed to override the Clinton vetoes, the margin has been less than the number of Republicans voting with the President. In other words, had the Republicans made their members toe the line on this most extreme example of barbarism, it would have passed.
Not only would the GOP not demand adherence to the party platform on this issue, but the GOP refused to stop sending campaign donations to candidates who supported PBA (the vote wasn’t even close). Henry Hyde’s support of G. W. Bush is supposed to allay fear that Bush may be no more pro-life than his father, but Hyde’s reputation as a solid pro-lifer was used to keep money flowing to pro-abort GOPers.
Does anyone think G. W. Bush is more conservative than Reagan (who despite his pro-life rhetoric nominated two pro-abort judges to the Supreme Court)? Bush does not believe that unborn babies have a right to life. He says he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. In other words, who lives and who dies is a political decision. There is not a right to life in the mind or heart of Bush, who opposed fellow Texan Tim Lambert’s resolution to defund PBA candidates.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Now, given the arguments, are you still so sure about voting Republican for the rest of your life?
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
I assume the papal nuncio was fully cognizant of Democratic and Republican positions on the HHS mandate, abortion, contraception, gay marriage and DOMA when he made his statement denouncing Catholic votes for the Democratic Party. He came down against the Democratic Party. Given his status with the Vatican, what more is there to argue?
E
estesbob
Guest
Straw-man-its not a matter of voting republican for life. Its a matter of explicit direction from the church that we can not vote for one who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded on demand.
Abortion will remain legal in this country until Catholic democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.
W
wynnejj
Guest
I have long been a detractor of the bishop’s call to Faithful Citizenship. But, I have to speak in defense of them today. They have a duty to bring the full message of the Gospel, including its foundations in the Old Testament. If you look to the Bible for inspiration about how one should proclaim the message that the faithful must bring the message of “social justice” to a pluralistic society, then the clearest Biblical account is in Jeremiah chapter 7. It actually reads much like Faithful Citizenship … and try as I might to interpret it as the slaughter of the innocents trumps all other issues … the message says that temple sacrifice is unacceptable to the Lord unless we address all the injustices to our fellow man … whether genocide, neglect of the orphan & widow, neglect of our resident alien, etc. It spends a little more time talking about the slaughter of the innocents, but I think it talks even more about adopting pluralistic values among the faithful. In a democracy, we have an uneasy “peace treaty” between Church & State. We are not to force or coerce Church values on citizens who feel that our values violate their moral conscience, and the State is not to force or coerce pluralistic values on the Church where it violates the believer’s moral conscience. Yet, the old addage that “you can’t legislate morality” is untrue because we do in fact legislate morality … e.g., everytime we increase taxes to redistribute wealth as a “safety net”. And I think Jeremiah 7 seems to says that we have a duty to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves or are not recognized as full citizens. But most of all, it says we must not be converted to pluralistic values … the worship of false idols … which in today’s world is simply false ideologies. The confusion is the method of honoring our uneasy “peace treaty” of not forcing or coercing people to violate their conscience and, safeguarding those who are the collateral damage … the poor & vulnerable, the resident alien, the slaughtered innocents.
W
wynnejj
Guest
I have long been a detractor of the bishop’s call to Faithful Citizenship. But, I have to speak in defense of them today. They have a duty to bring the full message of the Gospel, including its foundations in the Old Testament. If you look to the Bible for inspiration about how one should proclaim the message that the faithful must bring the message of “social justice” to a pluralistic society, then the clearest Biblical account is in Jeremiah chapter 7. It actually reads much like Faithful Citizenship … and try as I might to interpret it as the slaughter of the innocents trumps all other issues … the message says that temple sacrifice is unacceptable to the Lord unless we address all the injustices to our fellow man … whether genocide, neglect of the orphan & widow, neglect of our resident alien, etc. It spends a little more time talking about the slaughter of the innocents, but I think it talks even more about adopting pluralistic values among the faithful. In a democracy, we have an uneasy “peace treaty” between Church & State. We are not to force or coerce Church values on citizens who feel that our values violate their moral conscience, and the State is not to force or coerce pluralistic values on the Church where it violates the believer’s moral conscience. Yet, the old addage that “you can’t legislate morality” is untrue because we do in fact legislate morality … e.g., everytime we increase taxes to redistribute wealth as a “safety net”. And I think Jeremiah 7 seems to says that we have a duty to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves or are not recognized as full citizens. But most of all, it says we must not be converted to pluralistic values … the worship of false idols … which in today’s world is simply false ideologies. The confusion is the method of honoring our uneasy “peace treaty” of not forcing or coercing people to violate their conscience and, safeguarding those who are the collateral damage … the poor & vulnerable, the resident alien, the slaughtered innocents.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
This isn’t necessarily only a Church teaching.
Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
In his speech, For Aulus Cluentius 11.32: “I recollect that a certain Milesian woman, when I was in Asia, because she had by medicines brought on abortion, having ben bribed to do so by the heirs in reversion, was convicted of a capital crime; and rightly, in as much as she had destroyed the hope of the father, the memory of his name, the supply of his race, the heir of his family, a citizen intended for use of the republic. How much severer punishment does Oppianicus deserve for the same crime? For she, by doing this violence to her person, tortured her own body; but he effected the same crime through the torture and death of another. Other men do not appear to be able to commit many atrocious murders on one individual, but Oppianicus has been found clever enough to destroy many lives in one body…”
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
C
Cbus
Guest
You can either support laws banning gay marriage or you can support religious liberty, but you can’t support both.
It is an embarrassment that the Church is running around complaining about out religious liberty being violated, while at the same time we are actively trying to pass laws that infringe on the religious liberty of others.
I’m not saying the Church should stop opposing the HHS mandate or stop supporting gay marriage bans, but you can’t do both and claim you are a champion of religious liberty.
People always love to call Catholics hypocrites, and I always defend us. Hypocrisy is not saying something is wrong and doing it anyway. That is just sinning. Hypocrisy is saying what is right for me to do, is wrong for you to do. Right now we are practicing the height of hypocrisy .
It is an embarrassment that the Church is running around complaining about out religious liberty being violated, while at the same time we are actively trying to pass laws that infringe on the religious liberty of others.
I’m not saying the Church should stop opposing the HHS mandate or stop supporting gay marriage bans, but you can’t do both and claim you are a champion of religious liberty.
People always love to call Catholics hypocrites, and I always defend us. Hypocrisy is not saying something is wrong and doing it anyway. That is just sinning. Hypocrisy is saying what is right for me to do, is wrong for you to do. Right now we are practicing the height of hypocrisy .
E
estesbob
Guest
Nonsense. There is no comparison whatsover between opposing a law that forces me to pay for my employees contraception and abortificants and opposing a law that changes the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual marriage. There is absolutely nothing to stop any church that wishes to to “marry” homosexuals just as there is no right to force the got to recognize such marriages or ANY marriage (ie polygamous, incestuous).
It is amazing how quickly homosexual apologists will seize on an issue to try and advance their cause. I cant oppose the HHS mandate unless i support homosexual marriage??? We saw a similar thing in the anti-bullying movement-quickly morphing from opposing bullying to supporting homosexuality.
C
Cbus
Guest
No one is forcing us to accept them, but denying them familial rights to people who are not part of the Church–people who are not Catholic, will never be Catholic, or use any Catholic service–based on the teaching of the Church is absolutely infringing on their religious liberty.
I don’t see how any right minded person cannot understand that.
We can not force non-Catholics to live by our standards. It has to be a matter of free choice. And please don’t bring up abortion. Abortion is not a religious matter–there are plenty of reason to oppose it besides religion.
" I cant oppose the HHS mandate unless i support homosexual marriage???"
Again, I am no way saying that we should stop supporting laws that ban gay marriage; I’m just saying that if we do, we have to drop the religious liberty argument, because apparently, religious liberty is only important when it involves ours.
P
ProVobis
Guest
And the GOP loves ALL unborns? Check out what Nixon and others have said. Discrimination doesn’t lessen the evil.
P
Pitcharan
Guest
M
MJE
Guest
Father James V.Schall SJ writes we are a divided people, divided over the most fundamental issues of right and wrong. “Weimar election”?
The CWR Blog
A watershed election. A Weimar election?
November 08, 2012 06:39 ESTBy James V. Schall, S.J.
The 2012 presidential election will be analyzed to death. Then, it will be commented on for years or decades to come. Before the election, we heard various hypotheses about its import: “The year 2012 will see the last ‘free’ election.” It will reveal a deeply divided people, divided over the most fundamental issues of right and wrong. It is a “Weimar Election.” That was the vote of the Germans in the 1930s about who would rule the country. They did not read the party leader carefully or watch what he did. “The majority in the country is not ‘white’ but ‘brown.’” They dance to a different tune. “No real unified Catholic vote exists.” Some even think that Robert Hugh Benson’s 1907 novel, The Lord of the World, describes what next to expect.
. . . .
One might say that our people coldly looked the Leviathan in its eyes. They did not flinch as he brought them into his body. These are dramatic observations, no doubt. We now wait to see what happens next. We have established who is in power. We will not pass this way again.
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1734/a_watershed_election_a_weimar_election.aspx
The CWR Blog
A watershed election. A Weimar election?
November 08, 2012 06:39 ESTBy James V. Schall, S.J.
The 2012 presidential election will be analyzed to death. Then, it will be commented on for years or decades to come. Before the election, we heard various hypotheses about its import: “The year 2012 will see the last ‘free’ election.” It will reveal a deeply divided people, divided over the most fundamental issues of right and wrong. It is a “Weimar Election.” That was the vote of the Germans in the 1930s about who would rule the country. They did not read the party leader carefully or watch what he did. “The majority in the country is not ‘white’ but ‘brown.’” They dance to a different tune. “No real unified Catholic vote exists.” Some even think that Robert Hugh Benson’s 1907 novel, The Lord of the World, describes what next to expect.
. . . .
One might say that our people coldly looked the Leviathan in its eyes. They did not flinch as he brought them into his body. These are dramatic observations, no doubt. We now wait to see what happens next. We have established who is in power. We will not pass this way again.
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1734/a_watershed_election_a_weimar_election.aspx
W
wynnejj
Guest
Ahh, you cite three heroes of mine. And, I agree that Faithful Citizenship should be discarded if it is viewed as a how-to in forming a conscience, and most especially a treatise on proportionate reasoning. As a statement of principles, not priorities, it mirrors that of Jeremiah 7 very closely and, Jeremiah spoke for God. There is no question that the deep division in our church is largely due to the inability of the bishops to get their “ducks in a row” when it comes to clearly articulating priorities as it relates to the times. There is good in all this division though. I’ve been going through life on auto-pilot, but these controversial issues have forced me to dig into the Bible and church documents to learn my faith. And, if there is a real need for evangelization, how can one talk about that which they know so little about. So I see real purpose for good in these terrible conflicts of our time.
- Status