Poll taken that most people disagree with Catholic bishops denying Communion to politicians who support abortion.

[johnlal]

Do you realize that all of your points are prudential in nature? That arguments can be made in most of these cases?

Arguments can (and have) been made in every case, including the single issue with which you are so obsessed.

It seems to me that some voters are accepting violence, war, death penalty, poverty, torture, rape, and what Pope John Paul II described as a “culture of death” on the mere hope that one day the Republicans will put together a “dream team” Supreme Court who will declare abortion to be illegal (however briefly that opinion will stay on the books).

How can anybody support Abu Ghraib, the War in Iraq, the Death Penalty, and gun proliferation and say that you are against the “Culture of Death”?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

As a Catholic arguments cannot be made that affirm abortion because it is an intrinsic evil. This simply puts most Democrats off the viable list of candidates a faithful Catholic can vote for.

It is not my obsession; it is the Church’s affirmation that this issue is the great evil of our times. It is the evil fruit of those who do not follow the Way. Do a search of the CCC and you will see that excommunication is mentioned for one issue only.

It’s not a “me” thing; it’s about following Jesus.

Searching on the word excommunication:

1 through 3 of 3 matching documents, best matches first. sort by date
1: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1463 (480 bytes ) preview document matches
3 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1463.htm 96%

2: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2272 (580 bytes ) preview document matches
in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2272.htm 96%

3: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2322 (290 bytes ) preview document matches
27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2322.htm

 

[johnlal]

As a Catholic arguments cannot be made that affirm abortion because it is an intrinsic evil.

Just because you can make a clever argument for something doesn’t make it right. I can’t believe you’re telling me that you will condone the rape, torture and murder of innocent men, women and children on the slim chance that eventually the Supreme Court will overturn abortion.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

How can anybody support Abu Ghraib, the War in Iraq, the Death Penalty, and gun proliferation and say that you are against the “Culture of Death”?

This is a mish mash. I do not “support” Abu Ghraib crimes. No one does. Remember the offenders were prosecuted. The crimes don’t rise to the level of murder by the way. I do support incarcerating people who attempt to kill Americans either innocent men women and children or Americans on the field of battle. I assume you do, too.

I support an armed American populace because there is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership. Love of your own life is also Christian and you have a right to protect yourself and your family. I do not see a sin here.

I do not support the Death Penalty. I can see some unusual arguments to attempt to support it. It remains a prudential decision in that there are circumstances where it may be appropriate; I just do not see thise circumstances evident in America. Still others may have knowlege I do not.

I wrote this not to wander off topic, but to try to show how abortion is qualitatively different than these other issues:

The state’s murder of Terri Schiavo by withholding her food and water and causing an agonizing death for her. I remember the night Congress argued and the Democrats talked about “dignity” while they sat back and allowed her to die of thirst. I could never vote for people who would condone such a monstrous thing to occur.

If human life were inherently valued such a monstrosity would not have occured and a family would have their daughter. That’s one highlighted example in millions. The Church Jesus founded is right to focus on this issue and to focus our eyes on this issue.

So many of us are asleep at the switch on this genocide occuring in our midst.

 

[mary_bobo]

I think the Bishops should follow the catechism and teachings of the Church as it relates to abortion. However, I think that Bishops should not use the Eucharist as a stunt to sway a presidential election, as did a Bishop in Colorado just months before the Presidential election, when he threatened to withhold the Eucharist from Democrats.

If Catholics continue to see politics as a one issue litmus test, we will continue to elect criminals who will say anything to get elected. The majority of GW Bush’s presidency was a golden age for republicans. If the republicans were truly for ending abortion, and if they had the power to do so, it would have been done by now. It hasn’t. How many times are we going to let them fool us?

It might be a good idea if you would read up on civics before you make inane pronouncements like the above. President Bush does not have the power to single-handedly end abortion, but he can, and has, appoint judges who will not legislate from the bench. And to acquaint the Eucharist with a “stunt” is just obscene. Did you join this forum to spout vitriole, or did you join to learn and contribute?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Just because you can make a clever argument for something doesn’t make it right. I can’t believe you’re telling me that you will condone the rape, torture and murder of innocent men, women and children on the slim chance that eventually the Supreme Court will overturn abortion.

What murder? Your flinging charges without substantiation or context so there is literally no way to answer. I’m taking a lot of time to try and answer you. Help me out here. The other accusations relate to Ab Ghraib? I believe those issues were prosecuted, they certainly were not anything anyone supported.

I will prayerfully consider what you wrote; please do the same for me. God bless you.

–michael

 

[catholicbuckeye]

I think the Bishops should follow the catechism and teachings of the Church as it relates to abortion. However, I think that Bishops should not use the Eucharist as a stunt to sway a presidential election, as did a Bishop in Colorado just months before the Presidential election, when he threatened to withhold the Eucharist from Democrats.

If Catholics continue to see politics as a one issue litmus test, we will continue to elect criminals who will say anything to get elected. The majority of GW Bush’s presidency was a golden age for republicans. If the republicans were truly for ending abortion, and if they had the power to do so, it would have been done by now. It hasn’t. How many times are we going to let them fool us?

I agree with your first premise that it should not be used “as a stunt” and the circumstance you cited is a good one in my view. You cannot simply withold the Eucharist from somebody merely because they are a Democrat or Republican. Ofcourse, a Democrat politician (or Republican) who enables or facilitates abortion through their job as an elected official is a whole other story.

I will give Republicans a little more credit than you do though on the Life issue, particularly Bush in helping to set the stage of repealing abortion. Roberts and Alito are fine justices, certainly anyone concerned with the Life issue would have to be hopeful with them. Legislatively I can see where there would be disappointment; realistically speaking though, if you can’t pass through much needed change in Social Security (which may ruin my generation), then you certainly aren’t going to be able to pass laws repealing abortion. Most Democratic legislators are too beholden to Pro-Choice lobbyists to dare promote law protecting the unborn.

 

[johnlal]

I do not “support” Abu Ghraib crimes. No one does. Remember the offenders were prosecuted.

Untrue. General Teguba was recently interviewed about his investigation. He was prevented from investigating the CIA, or anyone higher up in the chain of command. Teguba was prevented from investigating Rumsfeld or the Department of Defense, or the President that was supposed to end the culture of death. After filing his report, Teguba was forced to retire as punishment for his investigation. So no. The offenders were not prosecuted.

The crimes don’t rise to the level of murder by the way.

There are reports and evidence of murder at Abu Ghraib, and coverups of those murders. There are also reports and evidence of rape, against men and also against children. I can’t believe you are trying to rationalize this.

I support an armed American populace because there is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership. Love of your own life is also Christian and you have a right to protect yourself and your family. I do not see a sin here.

The lack of restrictions on guns means that American arms dealers are selling assault rifles to terrorists, criminals and cop killers.

I do not support the Death Penalty. I can see some unusual arguments to attempt to support it.

As Governor of Texas, GW Bush sent a huge number of people to their deaths, even though Texas had the ability to protect the public by use of incarceration or other means. Bush mocked Carla Faye Tucker when interviewed about her pleas for clemency. In a mocking voice he aped “I don’t want to die”. This is the guy who’s going to save us from the culture of death?

The state’s murder of Terri Schiavo by withholding her food and water and causing an agonizing death for her. I remember the night Congress argued and the Democrats talked about “dignity” while they sat back and allowed her to die of thirst. I could never vote for people who would condone such a monstrous thing to occur.

The church teaches that “Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.”

The treatment of the Shaivo case was a cynical election-time circus, and disrespectful to the Shaivo family. The autopsy after Ms. Shaivo’s death confirmed that treatment was only postponing the inevitable, and that there was no hope for any recovery. We can all remember “Doctor” Bill Frist’s video diagnosis. Many of the Republicans who rushed to Washington to protect Shaivo had ended their own parents’ lives mercifully.

So many of us are asleep at the switch on this genocide occuring in our midst.

While we are debating the fine points of ethics on abortion and euthanasia, we are killing, torturing and raping thousands. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

 

[melensdad]

The lack of restrictions on guns means that American arms dealers are selling assault rifles to terrorists, criminals and cop killers.

Evidence please?

Actual “assault weapons” are very carefully scrutinized, subject to federal regulation, and I believe there has only been 1 instance of a legally sold assault weapon ever reported as used in a crime, and that person was arrested and prosecuted. Illegal assault weapons are virtually unheard of in criminal reports either. Now I don’t know what your loose definition of assault weapon is, nor do I know what your definitions are for other things, but I’m using the government’s definitions so from the crime reporting standpoint my evidence is accurate and if need be I can probably even find and post the evidence to back up what I wrote.

What you wrote reeks of sensationalism and seems to be something that has come from the webpages or brochures of the Brady Campaign, not from actual FBI or BATFE weapons & crime statistics data.

While we are debating the fine points of ethics on abortion and euthanasia, we are killing, torturing and raping thousands. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

Sorry, but this sure seems like more sensationalized pap with no evidence. Who is this “WE” you are referring to? Certainly you are not suggesting that “WE” the members here at C.A. are raping, killing & torturing? Perhaps “WE” is a worldwide collective comment and refers to tribal factions in Darfur? Or Muslim extremists in Bali? Or communist rebels in the Philippines countryside? Or maybe just criminal acts committed by* (dare I say it and be politically incorrect) *CRIMINALS?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Untrue. General Teguba was recently interviewed about his investigation. He was prevented from investigating the CIA, or anyone higher up in the chain of command. Teguba was prevented from investigating Rumsfeld or the Department of Defense, or the President that was supposed to end the culture of death. After filing his report, Teguba was forced to retire as punishment for his investigation. So no. The offenders were not prosecuted.

There are reports and evidence of murder at Abu Ghraib, and coverups of those murders. There are also reports and evidence of rape, against men and also against children. I can’t believe you are trying to rationalize this.

The lack of restrictions on guns means that American arms dealers are selling assault rifles to terrorists, criminals and cop killers.

As Governor of Texas, GW Bush sent a huge number of people to their deaths, even though Texas had the ability to protect the public by use of incarceration or other means. Bush mocked Carla Faye Tucker when interviewed about her pleas for clemency. In a mocking voice he aped “I don’t want to die”. This is the guy who’s going to save us from the culture of death?

The church teaches that “Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.”

The treatment of the Shaivo case was a cynical election-time circus, and disrespectful to the Shaivo family. The autopsy after Ms. Shaivo’s death confirmed that treatment was only postponing the inevitable, and that there was no hope for any recovery. We can all remember “Doctor” Bill Frist’s video diagnosis. Many of the Republicans who rushed to Washington to protect Shaivo had ended their own parents’ lives mercifully.

While we are debating the fine points of ethics on abortion and euthanasia, we are killing, torturing and raping thousands. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

As far as the Schiavo case, the dehydration renders illegitimate any autopsy on her brain. Nurses interviewed stated she was aware and you are incorrect in regard to her state. She only need food and water. The church states food and water is not burdensome. You are simply in the wrong here and I urge you to reconsider your opposition to clear church teaching.

The circus was on the other side: those seeking her untimely murder by the state.

Who is torturing and raping and murdering “thousands”? I want names! Otherwise retract! It is a sin of detraction. You just cannot sit there and type horrendous accusations without proof.

 

[johnlal]

Evidence please? \QUOTE]
palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/01/28/m1a_streetguns_0128.html

gunguys.com/?p=703

huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/50caliber-sniper-rifles_b_15251.html

Now I don’t know what your loose definition of assault weapon is…

 

[vern_humphrey]

melensdad;2373139:

Evidence please? \QUOTE]
palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/01/28/m1a_streetguns_0128.html

gunguys.com/?p=703

huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/50caliber-sniper-rifles_b_15251.html

Now, we’re not going to do a “slick Willie” on this one are we? It depends on what the definition of “is” is?

Actually, it refers to a Federal Indictment brought by the US Government against defendants who offered to buy a terrorist organization fifty 50 calibre weapons, which apparently are easier to buy in the US than are handguns.

huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/50caliber-sniper-rifles_b_15251.html

My original comment was on the hypocrisy of supporting the Republican party for the single issue of abortion while ignoring the party’s stance on torture and war. If you need any more evidence, look at recent Republican presidential debates, where presidential hopefuls are extolling the virtues of “enhanced interrogation techniques” including “water boarding” (a euphemism for Chinese Water Torture)-- and extolling the virtues of Jack Bauer in reference to a tortue scene in a Hollyweird Television program. This is the true face of the culture of death.

So basically, you hate the United States – everything we do is wrong, from out Constitution whoich guarentees the right to keep and bear arms to our willingness to defend ourselves and the rest of the free world.

 

[Brendan]

I If the republicans were truly for ending abortion, and if they had the power to do so, it would have been done by now. It hasn’t. How many times are we going to let them fool us?

Well, he oversaw the Partial Birth Abortion Act passed. Which is about the best one can do with Roe vs. Wade still on the books.

He has placed Roberts and Alito onto the Supreme Court, which is far more than John Kerry would have done.

Now if we can just get Stevens, Ginsburg and\or Souter replaced by someone like Roberts, you can expect FAR more pro-life activity.

The Supreme Court is where the pro-life battle is being fought, and we need a President who will appoint pro-life justices.

I have been VERY pleased with Bush’s work on that front.

 

[johnlal]

johnlal;2373372:

So basically, you hate the United States – everything we do is wrong, from out Constitution whoich guarentees the right to keep and bear arms to our willingness to defend ourselves and the rest of the free world.

By any remote stretch of the imagination, I can’t believe that “well regulated militia” can be used to describe criminal gangs and foreign terrorists.

Moreover, I don’t think the “willingness to defend ourselves” should include the rape and torture of innocent children.

Finally, don’t accuse me of hating America. Those are fighting words, and if you were here, I’d prove it.

 

[Brendan]

How does that work, Vern? I’m not being polemic, I am asking in seriousness. If the Pope says a war is unjust, we can ignore him? That’s not binding?

Actually no, it;s not.

The Church places the decision on the Justice of a War on the State itself.

CCC 2309

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

The same is true for the excercise of Captial Punishment. The final evaluation belongs to the State.

 

[Seeks_God]

I think the Bishops should follow the catechism and teachings of the Church as it relates to abortion. However, I think that Bishops should not use the Eucharist as a stunt to sway a presidential election, as did a Bishop in Colorado just months before the Presidential election, when he threatened to withhold the Eucharist from Democrats.

If Catholics continue to see politics as a one issue litmus test, we will continue to elect criminals who will say anything to get elected. The majority of GW Bush’s presidency was a golden age for republicans. If the republicans were truly for ending abortion, and if they had the power to do so, it would have been done by now. It hasn’t. How many times are we going to let them fool us?

I think bishops should do more than “threaten”…it used to be that if you held yourself publicly to be leading a sinful life, then the Church refused to give Communion until you aligned yourself properly…

It also bothers me everytime someone implies that religion has no place in politics…that just means one thing to me - politics have more influence over a person then their own faith, values and beliefs.

 

[johnlal]

Now if we can just get Stevens, Ginsburg and\or Souter replaced by someone like Roberts, you can expect FAR more pro-life activity.

Why would you have to replace Stevens, Gisburg and Souter, if you already have a majority? And I guess I don’t have to point out that Souter was nominated by George H.W. Bush?

 

[johnlal]

The final evaluation belongs to the State.

The final evaluation belongs to the voters. You don’t get off the hook that easily.

 

[melensdad]

melensdad;2373139:

Evidence please? \QUOTE]
palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/01/28/m1a_streetguns_0128.html

gunguys.com/?p=703

huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/50caliber-sniper-rifles_b_15251.html

Now, we’re not going to do a “slick Willie” on this one are we? It depends on what the definition of “is” is?

Actually, it refers to a Federal Indictment brought by the US Government against defendants who offered to buy a terrorist organization fifty 50 calibre weapons, which apparently are easier to buy in the US than are handguns.

huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/50caliber-sniper-rifles_b_15251.html

Interesting that EVERY source you quote is an ANTI-gun source, or a source that relies on the Brady Campaign for its information.

As far as “pulling a Bill Clinton” it is not me that is doing that, the definition for assault weapon is clearly defined by the BATF, but you are the one who is apparently relying on the Brady Campaign to mis-identify weapons. Here is a photo of my daughter shooting a gun that many believe to be an assault weapon because it is semi-automatic, capable of holding greater than 10 rounds (that is a 30 round ammunition clip in the gun in the photo), is capable of being modified to accept a flash suppressor, is capable of being modified to accept a folding stock, is capable of every blah blah blah that the Brady Campaign can think of

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Regarding the 50 caliber weapons, there is ZERO record or one of those EVER being used in ANY crime EVER. Further, those are not “assault weapons” even in a very loose sense of the term. Further, I have a couple weapons in my closet that will fire 72-caliber projectiles; of course I call them ‘12 gauge’ shotguns, but I really wonder what the evil name the gun grabbers will call those. But one is very nicely engraved with a turkey hunting scene on it, the other has fancy wood and gold inlay and is SEMI AUTOMATIC, both are capable of being modified to hold extended magazines, flash supressors, folding stocks and all the other goodies.

Guess duck hunters have a lot to fear from people who are anti-gun and are TOTALLY ignorant of the terms they use

 

[johnlal]

johnlal;2373372:

Guess duck hunters have a lot to fear from people who are anti-gun and are TOTALLY ignorant of the terms they use

HA! I don’t think the gang members and terrorists are hunting for ducks.