Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[fix]

False, Vern has asserted that Pope Benedict has decreed that there are “only three”. A statement which is untrue.

I will leave that to Vern.

I’m sorry, but you are citing an article from the laity as ‘proof’ of a different interpretation of “proportionate reasons” and “limiting the harm” than the one presented in a DOCTRINAL NOTE from the Church.

The reasoning presented by akin is consistent with traditional moral theology and in no way conflicts with the doctrinal note.

If one wants to know if the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra, you ask the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, not Jimmy Akin.

What? Cardinal Ratzinger, with the authority from the Pope, stated what I posted before. Are you denying his authority?

This basically reaffirms my point about ignorance of Catholic Doctrine and Dogma. You applauded Vern’s application of Primacy, even while he was mistating the Pope’s words and meaning.

Vern is right. You are wrong. Vern is consistent with Church teaching.

You believe that your point is proven by comments external to the Magesterium. Don’t bother citing Primacy of the church if you don’t accept it. Snatching bits and pieces that match your Republican ideology is a disservice to the Church.

More disassmebling. I am not a Republican. The links I provided, again, are true to magisterial teaching.

Case in point, in the Catholic faith prudential teachings are not automatically optional. The faithful can judge the Church’s confidence in the divinity of a teaching by its presentation. For example, rather or not a Pope chooses to comment on something during a religious celebration. It is also why we have all the different types of Church and Papal statemetns.

What are you talking about and what does this have to do with the discussion?

Based on the Dogmatic Constitution and Code of Canon Law, our teaching on the death penalty is more serious than our teachings on voting, since it appears both in a Papal Encyclical and the Catechism.

I am not in favor of the death penalty, but it is not intrinsically evil. Please see the Ratzinger note.

If you reject the Church’s teaching on death penalty, as you do, it is disengenuous to claim apostolic authority of a lesser nature when it supports your personal views.

I do acept the Church teaching as does Vern. He supports it and I do not. We both are consistent with Church teaching.

You are just making arguments of convenience. This would seem to match your taking an article from the laity to dispute not just a Doctrinal Note, but Pope Benedict’s own clarifying statements on the matter.

Perhaps you can prove this assertion?

 

[fix]

According to the Princes of the Church, poverty is a significant factor in obtaining a true culture of life.

Yes, does that mean the Church dictates health care policy to the USA? Is there only one right way?

You seem to be wholly misunderstanding the foundation of our belief about abortion. If I start raping, torturing, and murdering other’s family members to start pressuring people into voting for a particular Catholic belief, it is irrelevant how important the belief is, I am doing evil, not Christ’s work.

What? Who supports that? You think every single action in every single war is justified? There are police departments with men who abuse people, does that make policing wrong?

Likewise, you cannot justify particpation in an attrocity because it promotes another social teaching. This should be self evident, it is the argument that you and Vern just used to disparage people who vote Democratic because of multiple Church teachings - at the expense of abortion. The only difference is that it is being applied to other issues that the Church has described as non-negotiable.

We are talking proportionality here. The war, in many opinions, is not proportional to the abortion problem. If you think it is where is the proof? The Church has not bound anyone’s conscience in the war issue. Please do not place yourself above the Church.

If you are only willing to apply a principle when it matches what you already believe, then it is, again, just an argument of convenience.

If you disregard moral theology and how the Church applies it why be Catholic?

 

[SoCalRC]

Then please refrain.

One of the interesting aspects of our theology is that simply by declaring someone else to be Pharisee-like, we, ourselves, become him. (Luke 18:9-14)

Why people are more committed to their politics than their Church I cannot say, but actions speak for themselves. You seem to believe that we have a duty to study voting records, but how do you feel about advising Catholics on voting their faith and their faith’s doctrines using only rumor and annecdote while passing on repeated opportunitys to read the Church’s written position on the matter?

We serve best the master we love most.(Luke 16:13)

 

[SoCalRC]

We are talking proportionality here. The war, in many opinions, is not proportional to the abortion problem.

But the Church rejects such proportional thinking:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.” - Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

If you think it is where is the proof? The Church has not bound anyone’s conscience in the war issue. Please do not place yourself above the Church.

But the Church has bound my concience, for example:

"Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions…" - CCC 2313

The Gonzeles memo, etc. shows we deliberabely suspended the Geneva convention. Abu Graihb, the torture crucifixion of Jamadi, testimony and evidence in investigations by other nations, etc. show one aspect. The indiscriminate killing of civilians by Blackwater, and the State Department’s demonstrated complicity in covering up the wrong doing is another.

I don’t even have to interpret the Catechism for myself. Two Popes have stated, as Pope, that Iraq does not satisfy the Catechism. Further, our current Pope has repeatedly chosen Easter, our holiest celebration, to decry the situation as a “grave evil”.

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

When Vern used comments alone (misquoted at that), you applauded his reasoning and decied others for being to blind to follow what is right. But somehow the Catechism and the judgement of two Popes as well as the College of Bishops is irrelevant and uncompelling?

Your right-wing radio tactics notwithstanding, the point is simple. If you only ‘believe’ in the Gift of Authority when it suits you, what do your actions say about your committment to a core belief in Catholicism?

 

[fix]

But the Church rejects such proportional thinking:

Not proportionalism, but proportionate reasons. There is a big difference.

But the Church has bound my concience, for example:

The Gonzeles memo, etc. shows we deliberabely suspended the Geneva convention. Abu Graihb, the torture crucifixion of Jamadi, testimony and evidence in investigations by other nations, etc. show one aspect. The indiscriminate killing of civilians by Blackwater, and the State Department’s demonstrated complicity in covering up the wrong doing is another.

I am against all those things.

I don’t even have to interpret the Catechism for myself. Two Popes have stated, as Pope, that Iraq does not satisfy the Catechism. Further, our current Pope has repeatedly chosen Easter, our holiest celebration, to decry the situation as a “grave evil”.

Sorry, but you have given no proof anyone’s conscience is bound to reject the war as unjust. You are being facile.

When Vern used comments alone (misquoted at that), you applauded his reasoning and decied others for being to blind to follow what is right. But somehow the Catechism and the judgement of two Popes as well as the College of Bishops is irrelevant and uncompelling?

What are you talking about?

Your right-wing radio tactics notwithstanding, the point is simple. If you only ‘believe’ in the Gift of Authority when it suits you, what do your actions say about your committment to a core belief in Catholicism?

Again, I cannot follow your points. What I have discerned form following your posts is you think your erroneous interpretations of Vatican documents is equal to Church teaching.

You want to bind when the Church has not bound. Even when confronted with direct evidence from Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[vern_humphrey]

False, Vern has asserted that Pope Benedict has decreed that there are “only three”. A statement which is untrue.

On March 20th, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI said:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

 Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

 Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and it’s defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

 The protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.

(My emphasis)

What part of “among these” did you not understand?

 

[estesbob]

The fight against legalized abortion has gone on for years and will continue indefinitely. It is going to take a long time. Chances of immediate success in thinly populated areas (e.g. South Dakota) are better than it heavily populated areas like California and New York. That is simply the present social scene and politicians have to deal with it.

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Too many Catholics believe there is nothing that can be done about abortion and therefore it’s okay for them to vote for pro-abortion candidates. If Catholics quit voting for pro-abortion candidates abortion would be eliminated in this country within two election cycles.

 

[estesbob]

These observations are right on point. And there were practical considerations. Until the great 19th century advances in medicine, childbirth was more dangerous to women than abortion. By the end of the 19th century, the dangers of childbirth had been reduced (although even until the middle of the 20th century they were high by today’s standards) and there was more danger from abortion.

The idea that the church didnot consider abortion to be a grievous sin until 1869 is a myth. As far back as a 12th century confession guide you can see that abortion was listed as a grievous and mortal sin. In fact in the 14th century there was a time it was considered such a grievous sin than one had to petition Rome for forgiveness What the Pope did in 1869 was affirm the churches long-standing condemnation of abortion.

Many try to point to the ongoing arguments(dating back to Augustine) about the status of the unborn child before and after the quickening. But this had nothing to do with whether abortion was a mortal sin or not rather was totally focused on what the pennance should be for one who procured one. Penance for one who procured an abortion before the “quickening” was a lighter than penance for one you procured one after the “quickening”

 

[mary_bobo]

One of the interesting aspects of our theology is that simply by declaring someone else to be Pharisee-like, we, ourselves, become him. (Luke 18:9-14)

Why people are more committed to their politics than their Church I cannot say, but actions speak for themselves. You seem to believe that we have a duty to study voting records, but how do you feel about advising Catholics on voting their faith and their faith’s doctrines using only rumor and annecdote while passing on repeated opportunitys to read the Church’s written position on the matter?

We serve best the master we love most.(Luke 16:13)

Sorry if you did not understand my comment. It is implicit in my comment that we study voting records as opposed to what the candidates say during an election cycle and that this way we can better determine how they will support (or not) those things that we, as Catholics, should hold dear.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s a simple question for SoCalRC:

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Yes or no.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

On March 20th, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI said:

(My emphasis)

What part of “among these” did you not understand?

“Among these” is another way of saying “including but not limited to.” It’s not just those three but they are an example of all the non-negotiables.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Among these” is another way of saying “including but not limited to.” It’s not just those three but they are an example of all the non-negotiables.

So we are agreed that SoCalRC’s accusation that by posting this quote from the Pope I claimed there are “only three” is false?

Perhaps the lad might want to show himself a gentleman and apologize for that accusation?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Here’s a simple question for SoCalRC:

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and the other espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Yes or no.

I’d say NO. That doesn’t automatically mean that I’ll vote for the person claiming to be “pro-life” if their other stated positions are ideologically inimical to fostering a society that values human life over all.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

So we are agreed that SoCalRC’s accusation that by posting this quote from the Pope I claimed there are “only three” is false?

Perhaps the lad might want to show himself a gentleman and apologize for that accusation?

You ignore the other six that he mentions, though. Then you emphasize the only three that will gain Republicans more votes. Actually, considering the first one you mention (conception to natural death), I don’t see how anyone can vote Republican considering their enthusiasm for war and the death penalty, but you don’t see those as binding on your conscience.

I do mine.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The idea that the church didnot consider abortion to be a grievous sin until 1869 is a myth. As far back as a 12th century confession guide you can see that abortion was listed as a grievous and mortal sin. In fact in the 14th century there was a time it was considered such a grievous sin than one had to petition Rome for forgiveness What the Pope did in 1869 was affirm the churches long-standing condemnation of abortion.

Catholic Positions on Abortion

The Didache

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
(continued on next post)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic Positions on Abortion
(continued from previous post)
The Apocalypse of Peter

“And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras

“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian

“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] “the slayer of the infant,” which of course was alive. . . .

“[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

“Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (ibid., 27).

“The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]” (ibid., 37).

(continued on next post)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic Positions on Abortion
(Continued from previous post)

Minucius Felix

“There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide” (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

Hippolytus

“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

Lactantius

"When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. . . . Therefore, let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive [unborn] souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given.

“Can anyone, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are, without any controversy, wicked and unjust” (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

Council of Ancyra

“Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees” (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great

“Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not” (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

“He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees” (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom

“Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine” (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

(continued on next post)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Catholic Positions on Abortion
(Continued from previous post)

Jerome

“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

“Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . *f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed” (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

The Church has always vigorously opposed abortion, from the time of the Apostles on.*

 

[vern_humphrey]

You ignore the other six that he mentions, though.

On what grounds do you make that claim?

Then you emphasize the only three that will gain Republicans more votes.

No, Benedict XVI emphasized these three.

Actually, considering the first one you mention (conception to natural death), I don’t see how anyone can vote Republican considering their enthusiasm for war and the death penalty, but you don’t see those as binding on your conscience.

I do mine.

Cardinal Ratzinger said it was permissible to differ with the Holy Father on matters of war and the death penalty, but not on matters of abortion and euthanasia.

If you read the Catechism, you see that position laid out more fully. Neither the death penalty nor war are always wrong. But abortion and euthanasia can never be other than the most grevious sins.

Now let me put the simple question to you:

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Now let me put the simple question to you:

Given two candidates, one of whom espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who espouses a pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Already answered.