No despair here. One can live in a concentration camp and be a joyful saint. That’s why Maximilian Kolbe is canonized, and Father Kapaun’s cause is promoted.Re-education camps? US at that. Jim, I converted in 1985 and remember the end time prophecies the Protestants used to scare people into the pews. I am sad to see that type speech enter into the Catholic Church.
We shouldn’t despair. He is with us until the consummation of the world. And, He never said we wouldn’t have to suffer for His namesake.
How about the President who appointed enough justices to make it legal in the first place?The most pro-abortion president in history is now on his second term.
Abortion was condemned before the Church.Oh, I know that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But the Church has endured persecution before and will again. It has already started. I refer you to Fr. James Schall’s article on the Five Stages of Persecution.
I actually agree with you wholeheartedly. The breakdown of family & church in our society is making us poor & vulnerable, so I would say to the bishops that our prosperity is dependent on our morality and, … “Morality is to Prosperity as Clarity is to Charity”.Some have denied any confusion, or a need for clarification from the hierarchy claiming there is clarity. That is something the men of the Church do not agree with; evident in the articles I’ve posted.
Indeed abortion was condemned even by many pagans. If Cicero can get it right, why can’t the U.S. government?Abortion was condemned before the Church.
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…”
abort73.com/abortion_facts/ancient_abortion_history/
They did until the game-changer decision in 1973 to make it every woman’s right. Try taking that away from her now.Indeed abortion was condemned even by many pagans. If Cicero can get it right, why can’t the U.S. government?
If Obama appoints two more Supreme Court Justices, game over on the abortion issue.They did until the game-changer decision in 1973 to make it every woman’s right. Try taking that away from her now.
The Democratic party fashions itself as the party of abortion. Case closed.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.
Don’t need the Supreme Court to pass an amendment to the Constitution which can give the states their rights back to restrict abortion. In fact, you don’t need a Congress or a President to pass this amendment either.If Obama appoints two more Supreme Court Justices, game over on the abortion issue.
Excellent. Thanks for the link. All participants in, and readers of, this discussion should read the link carefully in its entirety. Perhaps then certain posters here would not automatically accuse others of mortal sin when they voted Obama, or of not following the teachings of the Catholic Church.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10030961&postcount=105Excellent. Thanks for the link. All participants in, and readers of, this discussion should read the link carefully in its entirety. Perhaps then certain posters here would not automatically accuse others of mortal sin when they voted Obama, or of not following the teachings of the Catholic Church.
You have not given an answer as to what you think are proportinate reasons and whether they are line with what Bishops have said*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.
The problem of abortion is not just a problem of consequences (abortions) but of justice
Even if policies from a pro abortion candidate reduce the abortion rate, that leaves in place a law that where it is legal to kill innocent human beings. To elect candidates who believe such a law is acceptable is unjustTo focus on reducing the abortion rate ignores the basic question of justice that abortion presents to the heart of our constitutional order
Excellent. Thanks for the link. All participants in, and readers of, this discussion should read the link carefully in its entirety. Perhaps then certain posters here would not automatically accuse others of mortal sin when they voted Obama, or of not following the teachings of the Catholic Church.
”Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University in Washington, cites two reasons for the bishops’ decision not to revise the text. “First, they think their 2007 statement is a balanced, intelligent approach, which is faithful to Catholic teaching. Remember, it passed overwhelmingly,” Reese said. “Second, they did not want a bloody decisive debate exposing their disagreement with a minority of bishops who wanted a stronger attack on pro-choice Democrats.
Fr Thomas Reese has said Republican opposition to the hhs mandate was because of polls. He said
Sad to hear such a statement from a priestContraception is a lot cheaper than live births, especially if the live births are problematic
Fr Thomas Reese resigned as editor of America magazine after repeated complaints from then Cardinal Ratzinger about the magazine’s treatment of several issues. According to Fr de Vera those wereBishops may be unhappy about the contraception mandate, but they have only 200 votes in this election
Christ as the unique savior; same-sex marriage; stem-cell research; and the reception of Communion by Catholic politicians who support legal abortion
Ok, and how does that change what Burke and Chaput said about the Faithful Citizenship?Fr Thomas Reese has said Republican opposition to the hhs mandate was because of polls. He said
Sad to hear such a statement from a priest
He said
Fr Thomas Reese resigned as editor of America magazine after repeated complaints from then Cardinal Ratzinger about the magazine’s treatment of several issues. According to Fr de Vera those were
Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”Perhaps then certain posters here would not automatically accuse others of mortal sin when they voted Obama, or of not following the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I think it would be a good if we started stripping the R and D after the names and let the candidates run on their own merits.Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”
We know that is not likely to happen any time soon.I think it would be a good if we started stripping the R and D after the names and let the candidates run on their own merits.
Maybe some Christians are the ones that should change their designation and call their religion what their own names are.We know that is not likely to happen any time soon.
What we have is one party (it begins with a D) that has intrinsic evils among its basic principles.
Christians have no choice but to take a stand against that party.