A
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
I just want to make sure Vern wasn’t the only one considered rigid.Very kind of you to answer for vern…
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Maybe Vern got tired of all the childish sniping going on.Very kind of you to answer for vern…
A
Amolibri
Guest
No worry there…there’s plenty of rigidity to go around! :doh2:I just want to make sure Vern wasn’t the only one considered rigid.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
That is false, two GOP hopefuls have publicly stated that we should expand our capacity for detentions outside of US jurisdiction and that we should be using more aggressive interogation techniques, not less.
The current administration has stated adamantly that it does “not torture”, but we know from its own documentation that it bases this claim on redefining ‘torture’ from norms accepted by the US government and the US military for over a century.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Vern, this seems to be a recurring problem with you. You seem to quote things and then are startled at what they actually say.Doing your mindreading act again? Where’s your turban and crystal ball?
And who’s doing that?
For example, you once used some Tertullian quotes you snagged from a website, but when we inserted the missing paragraph from the original treaty on the soul, we could see that Tertullian was not just describing a primitive partial birth abortion in gruesome detail, he was also declaring it a “necessary cruelty”, which he argued was indisputably just and morally rightous.
A similiar thing is occuring here. The quote in question reiterates what the Church has instructed us by doctrinal note, some moral principles cannot be compromised if one is to properly adhere to our faith.
No one has disputed that. Arguing that anything I have stated here, ever, can be construed as a justification for voting against the protection of innocent fetal life is the ultimate strawman. It is simply and completely false.
The distinction between us is in what you are imagining the quote says. You seem to infer that because abortion is mentioned as a non-negotiable moral principle, that it is either our only non negotiable principle, or a principle that is so important that it is justifiable to abandon all others.
However, that is where my quotes come in. The Church takes your quote and expands on it. There are multiple moral principles that do not permit abridgement for what the Church describes as a “well-formed Christian conscience”.
Truly voting Catholic is not at all simple. You, estesbob, and Mary all endorse a very simple path, but the Church stresses the perils of such abridgement:
Note that the reference to Human Person means in the context of LUMEN GARDIUM from the Second Vatican Council. Also notice that it is demands - plural.
To make sure that there is no doubt, the Church lists 9 examples of “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”. Bishop Olmstead is correct, abortion is most assuredly one of them, but it is not the only one - and the Bishop does not say that it is.
My fundemental criticism here is not that people compromise, we all are sinners, we all make moral compromises. Besides, the list is harder to honor than it looks. For example, “society’s protection of minors”, seems to obviously preclude voting for exposed pedophiles, but how politicians who help cover up their activities? Or politicians who accept large amounts of money from entities that exploit underage labor in sweat shops or the sex trade.
Or how about another non-negotiable (per the Church), “family” and “monogamous marriage between a man and a woman”? Does it only matter what a politician says, or do actions count? For example, the vice president’s daughter chaired his re-election effort and lives in a “committed gay relationship” and is even having a child, reportedly conceived in a method that contradicts the Church’s interpretation of another non-negotiable, “respect and protect the rights of the human embryo”. Actually, that one is easier than many, since by publicly supporting his daughter the vice president has directly connected himself to the violation of non negotiable moral principles, but it gives the idea.
So, again, I am not critical that people do not wholly vote their faith. I agree with the Church that they should, but none of us reach the moral bar set by Christ. My criticism is that, having made moral compromises it seems particularly un-Christian, and distinctly un-Catholic to declare one’s moral compromises to not only be rightous in the eyes of God, but indisputably and uniquely so.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I generally make it a policy not to bother responding to statements incorrectly embedded in quote blocks. However, I felt this one is worth touching on.
After all, I have provided links to neo-con writings, by neo-cons, for neo-cons. These self described neo-cons are well represented in both mainstream media (William Krystol now has a column for the NYT) and are a constant presence on Fox News and talk radio.
And, they have undoubtedly done a lot of explaining for themselves. For example, George Weigel has, literally written nearly 100,000 words on the subject just between op eds for FIRST THINGS and his regular column that appears in Catholic newspapers across the country. Most of the prominent ones currently serving in government have also written entire books.
But I am supposed to condense all that neo-con thinking into 100 words for you to digest? Is the presumption that their thinking is incredibly simplistic and shallow? Or perhaps that you do not have the patience for a meaningful explanation?
Let’s be clear, these are folks you support, by proxy, for control of the nation. Understanding who and what you vote for is not my responsibility:
I’m sorry, as a citizen and as a Catholic, understanding what you vote for is up to you.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Don’t read a whole lot into Iowa or NH. The real poliitcal power in this country lies in the South and Flyover country.
The dems continue to lose the White House despite the fact they carry California, NY, Pa, Illinois, all big ticket states, but they can’t overcome the South.
I don’t know about 08, keeping Florida in the fold gets harder every election. Why the dems are for open borders, and buying votes with my tax dollars, to sway the demogrpahics in the battleground states.
The South dictates who runs the White House. Do you think a SINGLE red state, that voted for Bush in 04 is gonna vote for HILLARY??
I don’t see it, but heck what do I know, only lived here for 50 years.
The south votes in a block with 33% of the country’s population,(and growing) and most of the industry. The only time in recent history the south did not vote as a block and determine the election were Carter in 76 and Clinton in 92. Notice those 2 presidents were southern, and they managed to break off a few southern states for the dems.
The Northeast and California now facing the prospect of losing seats in the house. States such as NJ, NY will probably give up seats while states such as Texas (projected to pick up 4, Florida 3, Georgia 1 possibly 2) Even California is expected to lose a couple. Chased off by crazy high taxes, and nasty weather (brrrrrrrr) many have voted with their feet and left.
Many of the dems that went into congress in 06 were southern, they ran on a conservative agenda, why Pelosi can’t get anything done, not on the same page with many in her OWN party.
But hope springs eternal, I guess a few genuinely believe Hillary is gonna pick up a few southern states and tilt the election; yeah about the time cows fly.
The dems continue to lose the White House despite the fact they carry California, NY, Pa, Illinois, all big ticket states, but they can’t overcome the South.
I don’t know about 08, keeping Florida in the fold gets harder every election. Why the dems are for open borders, and buying votes with my tax dollars, to sway the demogrpahics in the battleground states.
The South dictates who runs the White House. Do you think a SINGLE red state, that voted for Bush in 04 is gonna vote for HILLARY??
I don’t see it, but heck what do I know, only lived here for 50 years.The south votes in a block with 33% of the country’s population,(and growing) and most of the industry. The only time in recent history the south did not vote as a block and determine the election were Carter in 76 and Clinton in 92. Notice those 2 presidents were southern, and they managed to break off a few southern states for the dems.
The Northeast and California now facing the prospect of losing seats in the house. States such as NJ, NY will probably give up seats while states such as Texas (projected to pick up 4, Florida 3, Georgia 1 possibly 2) Even California is expected to lose a couple. Chased off by crazy high taxes, and nasty weather (brrrrrrrr) many have voted with their feet and left.
Many of the dems that went into congress in 06 were southern, they ran on a conservative agenda, why Pelosi can’t get anything done, not on the same page with many in her OWN party.
But hope springs eternal, I guess a few genuinely believe Hillary is gonna pick up a few southern states and tilt the election; yeah about the time cows fly.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Not relevant. No one is presently put to the task of voting for or against Cheney or his daughter. That’s not the question. The question with regard to that issue is whether one may conscientiously vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage.
The more relevant question is which presidential candidate is likely to appoint a John Roberts or a Ruth Ginzburg to the Supreme Court, and I think we know the answer to that, at least as to some of them.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
But that doesn’t tell us what you mean by “neo-con.”
As I said, when someone calls someone else a "Son of a " he doesn’t mean the person actually has canine ancestry. He means something entirely different.
So tell us what you mean.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Google Godwin’s law. That’s all you need relative to the Nazi crack.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
Actually, Supreme Court models are playing with fire. The lens is such as only one issue really matters, which blinds the process to the entire person nominated, who may be very bad in many other ways (e.g. pro-business, anti-worker, pro-Carte Blanche Presidential power, etc…).
To only weigh matters this narrowly risks hurting the country in many other numerous ways as we are willing to risk all our other freedoms on one narrow issue.
B
BamaRider
Guest
So if a guy has knowledge of a dirty bomb goin off in YOUR hometown wiping out your family, you’d be against doin whatever had to be done to prevent it?
G
goofyjim
Guest
The Nazi wisecrack was not necessary. Outside of the prochoice stance the Democrats hold alot of principle values that Catholics should vote for over the Republicans. That’s why they were the Catholic party before the right to life was threatened. If we could restore the Democratic party to the right to llife principle there would be every reason in the world to abandon the Republicans. If we had two prolife candidates from the parties I would vote differently than I do. Unfortunately I have to bide my time and vote in favor of life. We need a new party which will embrace the prolife aspect and the rest of the Democrat principles.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
No, you are not getting it. I fully know and have said directly that the Vatican has not declared Iraq and unjust war. That is obvious. But it has spoken to a degree that anyone with common sense agrees that both Popes have stated their opposition to the war and that Benedict feels the CCC may need to be revized since he cannot think a just war may any longer be invisioned. So as a Catholic you may continue to support the Iraq war because you are technically allowed. Why you would desire to do so is simply incomprehensible if you agree that the Pope perhaps has a better grip on this issue than you do. That you ignore my links is not my fault…They make the case better than I
Clearly you can, but in doing so you are of course disagreeing with two Popes. I’m aware that many here frown on that.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You’re not following the discussion, are you?
No one is “weighing matters this narrowly.” We are applying Catholic morality, using Pope Benedict’s “principles that are not negotiable” to make the first cut. Those candidates who pass the test of the non-negotiables are subject to further scrutiny, on lesser (but still important) criteria.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
No it does not, but an reading of the documents makes it very clear again where John Paul II stood. The USCCB could not be clearer on the issue. The question is again, given that the Vatican has spoken of its deep question of whether it can be defended any more with the clear statement of your countries bishops…why would you choose to follow your own desires? See my blog post today, for a rather lengthy rundown of the DP along with citations to various documents.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Which Popes?
All Popes try to avert war – that’s their duty. But no Pope mades the prudential decision that a given war is not just – that would violate the Catechism.
And whatever reservation John Paul II might have had about the war, he clearly stated we should stay and finish the job. To say otherwise is to say that which is not true.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Which is exactly why the Republican Party says that they’re pro-life but they have no intention in actually abolishing abortion. The Republican party apparatus knows that Christians would have no reason to vote Republican if the moral issues were no longer theirs to flog.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Forum rules prohibit discussing specific political candidates, so I choose an example that met the rules but still illustrated the point.
Well, Ginsburg’s judicial appointments, including the Supreme Court, required the explicit support of four different GOP senators. Further, the GOP elected not to block her nomination either in committee or on the Senate floor, a power that they most assuredly had.
Roberts has had one opportunity to make a Supreme Court statement on Roe v. Wade and Casey, and sided with both for legal precedent in Carhart. Prompting Scalia and Thomas to prepare a concurring opinion, where they, unlike Roberts, rejected Roe v. Wade.
And, in disagreeing with the majority, Ginsburg joined the District of Nebraska, not exactly a hot bed of liberal activism (dominated by GOP appointees).
However, I thought that the point was Catholicism? Are you asserting that the status of abortion in secular law is the extent of our faith? If so, the Church disagrees. As noted, we have multiple non-negotiable moral teachings. Abortion is only one.
- Status