President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[mapleoak]

It’s outrageous that there is outrage. However, if they who are outraged use their intelligence instead of their feelings they might create something that benefits our faith and the children we want to save.
The easy response is outrage. The more difficult response is to trust and thank God for the opportunity to engage with the president that so many oppose.

Giving the president an honorary degree which scandalizes the country and engaging with the president in dialog are two very distinct things.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Because we don’t need to use evil means in this or any other situation. I must say you are certainly intent on drawing attention away from the immorality of supporting pro-abortion candidates.

Ok so back to your topic. Wouldn’t electing George W. Bush and **** Cheney be an evil means of opposing abortion? After all, they supported an unjust war, they allowed torture, they increased allowable pollution, and they supported the death penalty. The ends (abortion laws) don’t justify the means (supporting evildoers).

 

[mapleoak]

If murder and abortion were equivalent, it would be a murder conviction.

A jury doesn’t decide if abortion is murder or if murder is a sin. A jury decides if the party is guilty of the crime accused of as defined by the law. A jury does not deliberate over whether it agrees with the law. Sit in on a few jury trials to see how it works.

When my parents were first married, my grandmother disapproved of my father. She caused my mother a lot of stress, and my mother miscarried.

Neither here nor there, however there are different kinds of stress. If she was stressed due to being beaten and abused, that could very well be manslaughter. Doesn’t mean abortion should be legal nor that we should support pro-abortion politicians.

As for what abortion being illegal means; Doctors would be subject to malpractice and loss of licensce and prosecution for murder. Abortificiants would be banned. Use of them would be no different than that of any other black market or illegal drug which is subject to prosecution. If evidence of procured bortion is found, prosecution would also follow. Unreasonable search and seizure is not at issue, no need to make as if it is. Further, organizations such as planned parenthood get put out of business (or at least support themselves through some other means which does not involve killing people). No need to muddy the water with things such spontaneous miscarriages and the like. None of this justifies abortion being legal nor for supporting pro-abortion politicians.

 

[catharina]

If murder and abortion were equivalent, it would be a murder conviction.

When my parents were first married, my grandmother disapproved of my father. She caused my mother a lot of stress, and my mother miscarried. My grandmother is a faithful Catholic. She goes to Mass several times a week and participates in all of the church activities. But she would have served years in prison if you had your way. For what? Arguing with my mom? Would every woman have to report being pregnant, so social services could monitor it? What if she didn’t know? Would miscarriages have to be reported, as infant deaths are? Would there be an investigation into every miscarriage, which are frequent and spontaneous more often than not?

In Chile, most of the doctors that perform abortions are in private hospitals and don’t get investigated. Poor women are more likely to try to do it themselves, or go to someone who isn’t a doctor. Doctors aren’t dumb, they know what they can get away with. Few doctors would be arrested.

By following, I mean I will not suggest that anyone get an abortion. If someone in my life were considering it, I would do everything I could to prevent her from doing it.

“Santiago” is Spanish for “Saint James”, and I hardly expect this conversation to spread beyond this forum. And you certainly are angry at me, so I’m not sure why you would say you aren’t. But as you say, the Church is incorruptible, and nothing I can do will change it, so what is upsetting you so much?

I already showed that Church teaching has changed with regard to a person receives a soul. This change happened due to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Then, I showed how at the very early stages of embryonic development, the blastulae can naturally split and recombine to form a number of different people. This would indicate that a blastula is not a person with a soul; in fact it hasn’t even been established how many people it will be yet. My point is that the Church has not changed yet with respect to this scientific understanding, and I believe it should.

Luis, you state: “I already showed that Church teaching has changed with regard to a person receives a soul. This change happened due to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Then, I showed how at the very early stages of embryonic development, the blastulae can naturally split and recombine to form a number of different people. This would indicate that a blastula is not a person with a soul; in fact it hasn’t even been established how many people it will be yet. My point is that the Church has not changed yet with respect to this scientific understanding, and I believe it should.”

You have “shown” and proved nothing -
except that you hold your opinion to be above the Church.

You have clearly stated that you plan to do NOTHING to defeat abortion since it has no ‘personal bearing’ on your very limited personal experience. That 50million Americans have died in the last few decades due to ABORTION highlights the ignorance of your stance. Any of them could have been the priest that would serves you, the teachers that would educate you, beloved friends who would erich your life, maybe a spouse. Yet none of these will ever enter your life in such manner since all have been slaughtered.

I’m sorry that your grandma didn’t like your daddy. I’m sorry that you mommy miscarried. I’ve no idea if your grandmother caused your mother’s miscarriage - and neither do you. Yet I know that many folks read these posts, especially the ones regarding pro-life issues and you, proclaiming yourself to be a Catholic continue to insist you’re not interested in whether abortion is the law of the land - although, young man, it was NOT the law of the land for all of the nation’s history uintil the last few decades.

Your ignorance is appalling and the fact that you cling to it is even worse.
Angry at you? I’m angry at the garbage you continue to spout as truth.
Angry at you? Why should I be? I’m quite certain you’ve made your own comfy choices.

 

[mapleoak]

Ok so back to your topic. Wouldn’t electing George W. Bush and **** Cheney be an evil means of opposing abortion? After all, they supported an unjust war, they allowed torture, they increased allowable pollution, and they supported the death penalty. The ends (abortion laws) don’t justify the means (supporting evildoers).

In my case as I have stated earlier, I could not support the above due to their support of various non-negotiable issues including that of approving of abortion in limited circumstances. However I have also clearly posted on Church teaching regarding the licit application of “limiting the harm” as defined in the document Evangelium Vitae.

I maintain, as I always have, that I cast no judgement on those whose conscience may direct them to justifiably attempt to apply proportionate reasons for the purposes of limiting the harm nor upon those who hold absolute adherence to the Church’s teaching on non-negotiable issues as their conscience dictates. A few posts back I indicated that proportionate reasons could not possibly apply in the case of supporting the election of our current president. You cannot limit the harm by voting for and supporting the most pro-abortion candidate. It is self deceit. It is no different than shooting someone saying “gee, I don’t mean to kill you, I only want to test and see if this gun works”.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Luis, you state: “I already showed that Church teaching has changed with regard to a person receives a soul. This change happened due to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Then, I showed how at the very early stages of embryonic development, the blastulae can naturally split and recombine to form a number of different people. This would indicate that a blastula is not a person with a soul; in fact it hasn’t even been established how many people it will be yet. My point is that the Church has not changed yet with respect to this scientific understanding, and I believe it should.”

You have “shown” and proved nothing -
except that you hold your opinion to be above the Church.

The Church can change in response to science, you said this much yourself. Would you say that scientists who make discoveries that contradict church teaching, hold their opinions to be above the Church?

You have clearly stated that you plan to do NOTHING to defeat abortion since it has no ‘personal bearing’ on your very limited personal experience. That 50million Americans have died in the last few decades due to ABORTION highlights the ignorance of your stance. Any of them could have been the priest that would serves you, the teachers that would educate you, beloved friends who would erich your life, maybe a spouse. Yet none of these will ever enter your life in such manner since all have been slaughtered.

I mourn for them. I truly do. But I don’t think the solution is to do everything in our power to enact a series of laws that will never have enough support to pass in the United States. Unless our goal is to forcibly change the country, we need to build a consensus first, and right now I believe we’re going about it all wrong.

I’m sorry that your grandma didn’t like your daddy. I’m sorry that you mommy miscarried. I’ve no idea if your grandmother caused your mother’s miscarriage - and neither do you. Yet I know that many folks read these posts, especially the ones regarding pro-life issues and you, proclaiming yourself to be a Catholic continue to insist you’re not interested in whether abortion is the law of the land - although, young man, it was NOT the law of the land for all of the nation’s history uintil the last few decades.

English common law stated that a life began at quickening, when the child first stirs in the womb. This law governed the colonies and was the original law of the United States. Most abortion laws in the US that prosecuted abortions before quickening were enacted between 1820 and 1860. I kid you not.

Your ignorance is appalling and the fact that you cling to it is even worse.
Angry at you? I’m angry at the garbage you continue to spout as truth.
Angry at you? Why should I be? I’m quite certain you’ve made your own comfy choices.

My decisions were not arrived at easily or comfortably. There are parts of the Catholic doctrine I tried to believe, years ago, but could not, no matter how hard I tried or who explained them to me. I finally had to make the decision whether to modify several of my beliefs or leave the Church. I chose the former. I’m not sure why I am telling this to you since you will probably continue to ridicule me, but I assure you, there was a lot of prayer and soul-searching on my part.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

In my case as I have stated earlier, I could not support the above due to their support of various non-negotiable issues including that of approving of abortion in limited circumstances. However I have also clearly posted on Church teaching regarding the licit application of “limiting the harm” as defined in the document Evangelium Vitae.

Performing an abortion if there was no way the mother could live otherwise would be an example of limiting the harm.

I maintain, as I always have, that I cast no judgement on those whose conscience may direct them to justifiably attempt to apply proportionate reasons for the purposes of limiting the harm nor upon those who hold absolute adherence to the Church’s teaching on non-negotiable issues as their conscience dictates. A few posts back I indicated that proportionate reasons could not possibly apply in the case of supporting the election of our current president. You cannot limit the harm by voting for and supporting the most pro-abortion candidate. It is self deceit. It is no different than shooting someone saying “gee, I don’t mean to kill you, I only want to test and see if this gun works”.

The socialist candidate for president, Bernie something, was certainly more pro-abortion than Obama.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

In my case as I have stated earlier, I could not support the above due to their support of various non-negotiable issues including that of approving of abortion in limited circumstances. However I have also clearly posted on Church teaching regarding the licit application of “limiting the harm” as defined in the document Evangelium Vitae.

I maintain, as I always have, that I cast no judgement on those whose conscience may direct them to justifiably attempt to apply proportionate reasons for the purposes of limiting the harm nor upon those who hold absolute adherence to the Church’s teaching on non-negotiable issues as their conscience dictates. A few posts back I indicated that proportionate reasons could not possibly apply in the case of supporting the election of our current president. You cannot limit the harm by voting for and supporting the most pro-abortion candidate. It is self deceit. It is no different than shooting someone saying “gee, I don’t mean to kill you, I only want to test and see if this gun works”.

You’re like a car alarm. It has a noble purpose, to protect against theft. But it goes off so much and for such minor reasons, that everybody just tries to ignore it no matter how loud it is. It is so prone to react negatively to everything that happens that it has little chance of ever achieving its purpose.

Anyway, the socialist candidate for president and Ralph Nader, were both a lot more pro-abortion than Obama.

 

[magdelaine]

Anyway, the *socialist *candidate for president and Ralph Nader, were both a lot more pro-abortion than Obama.

ROFLOL! That is the icing on the cake of your mistaken ideas and mixed up facts. You need some educating.

Here is a link for you.

Now try to explain your “politics” to Jesus.

 

[catharina]

The Church can change in response to science, you said this much yourself. Would you say that scientists who make discoveries that contradict church teaching, hold their opinions to be above the Church?

I mourn for them. I truly do. But I don’t think the solution is to do everything in our power to enact a series of laws that will never have enough support to pass in the United States. Unless our goal is to forcibly change the country, we need to build a consensus first, and right now I believe we’re going about it all wrong.

English common law stated that a life began at quickening, when the child first stirs in the womb. This law governed the colonies and was the original law of the United States. Most abortion laws in the US that prosecuted abortions before quickening were enacted between 1820 and 1860. I kid you not.

My decisions were not arrived at easily or comfortably. There are parts of the Catholic doctrine I tried to believe, years ago, but could not, no matter how hard I tried or who explained them to me. I finally had to make the decision whether to modify several of my beliefs or leave the Church. I chose the former. I’m not sure why I am telling this to you since you will probably continue to ridicule me, but I assure you, there was a lot of prayer and soul-searching on my part.

Luis, I’m not ridiculing you although you are clearly ridiculing Church Teaching.

In centuries past, fetal movement was the only abolutely conclusive sign of pregnancy.
That is, in your terms, “quickening.” Your big discovery is common knowledge.

The Church, however, has always and repeatedly forbidden abortion.

So if pregnancy was called CERTAIN at the time of movement or at the time of conception, the CHURCH has remained infallibly opposed to abortion. I’ve heard that Aquinas held the notion that life ‘began’ at ‘quickening.’ SO WHAT? As a pregnancy is discovered, it is at the same time protected from murderous assault.

What special instruction need be addressed to Luis Santiago? I assure YOU that much prayer and soul-searching will NEVER lead you to reject Truth. You seem to believe that YOUR faith requires a reasonable explanation in all instances. That’s not faith.

PS -
I don’t presume to speak for scientists, many of whom are not Catholic in the first place.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Oh, you mean like WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment, and SCHIP? I guess because Republicans consistently vote against them?

Republican in the Federal Government have a good reason for voting against the programs.

A) They should be provided by the state.

B) Any government overseeing 300 million people will never be able to efficiently support such social programs without wasting Billions of dollars.(That could have stayed in the States to support the programs more efficiently.)

C) Some states do implement those programs already, my second child when I was going through some financially rough times was born under Sooner Care. We got off of it and WIC as soon as we got back on our feet though. (Which unfortunately a lot of people on social programs like to milk it for all its worth.)

Our states are supposed to be 50 different little countries, not controlled by one federal government.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Your view of what I have said is so twisted. You cannot protect the unborn if you do not protect those who carry them. I cannot believe what I have read from you. You immediately attack without understanding what you are attacking. Do you want to stop abortion or do you want to stomp on people?

So, women who have abortions arent safe? Really, either I am understanding exactly what you are saying and obviously not likeing it. Or, you are having a horrible time explaining what you mean.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Luis, I’m not ridiculing you although you are clearly ridiculing Church Teaching.

In centuries past, fetal movement was the only abolutely conclusive sign of pregnancy.
That is, in your terms, “quickening.” Your big discovery is common knowledge.

They knew that there was pregnancy before quickening, but they did not make it a crime to abort a fetus before this period. I am not trying to justify abortion, only show that its legality in this country isn’t strictly a recent phenomenon, like you insisted it is.

The Church, however, has always and repeatedly forbidden abortion.

I don’t deny this. I never once claimed abortion is not a sin. However, I have claimed that other evils aren’t insignificant compared to it.

So if pregnancy was called CERTAIN at the time of movement or at the time of conception, the CHURCH has remained infallibly opposed to abortion. I’ve heard that Aquinas held the notion that life ‘began’ at ‘quickening.’ SO WHAT? As a pregnancy is discovered, it is at the same time protected from murderous assault.

You’re wrong, both on the infallibility (it was never used for anything relating to abortion) and on the rationale behind the notion that the soul enters the body at quickening. Our forbears weren’t stupid. They knew the signs of pregnancy before the child began to move, and they knew what embryos looked like from miscarriages. The idea was that an embryo has first a plant soul, then an animal soul, then a human soul. Strange, but that’s what they believed. They believed that it was like a plant until its soul entered it, and then it was able to move.

What special instruction need be addressed to Luis Santiago? I assure YOU that much prayer and soul-searching will NEVER lead you to reject Truth. You seem to believe that YOUR faith requires a reasonable explanation in all instances. That’s not faith.

And you seem to believe that it is impossible for you or the Catholic Church to be wrong. When Galileo concluded that the earth must revolve around the sun, I suppose you would have told him that he should believe the Church that the sun revolved around the earth and that his faith shouldn’t require a reasonable explanation.

ROFLOL! That is the icing on the cake of your mistaken ideas and mixed up facts. You need some educating.

Here is a link for you.

Now try to explain your “politics” to Jesus.

That was disgusting and immature. I say over and over I believe abortion is a sin, it is wrong, etc. I only say two things different than the Church on this matter. The first is that an embryo in the first few weeks of growth is not yet a person, since at this point it can still become multiple people. The other thing I say is that a woman who is certain to die without an abortion should be allowed to make that decision. If I wanted to stoop to your level, I could show you a picture of a decaying woman’s body with a decaying fetus protruding from her midsection. But thankfully those pictures do not exist because reasonable societies aren’t so rigid as to allow that to happen.

You’re disguising your hate and anger as compassion for the unborn.

 

[catharina]

They knew that there was pregnancy before quickening, but they did not make it a crime to abort a fetus before this period. I am not trying to justify abortion, only show that its legality in this country isn’t strictly a recent phenomenon, like you insisted it is.

I don’t deny this. I never once claimed abortion is not a sin. However, I have claimed that other evils aren’t insignificant compared to it.

You’re wrong, both on the infallibility (it was never used for anything relating to abortion) and on the rationale behind the notion that the soul enters the body at quickening. Our forbears weren’t stupid. They knew the signs of pregnancy before the child began to move, and they knew what embryos looked like from miscarriages. The idea was that an embryo has first a plant soul, then an animal soul, then a human soul. Strange, but that’s what they believed. They believed that it was like a plant until its soul entered it, and then it was able to move.

And you seem to believe that it is impossible for you or the Catholic Church to be wrong. When Galileo concluded that the earth must revolve around the sun, I suppose you would have told him that he should believe the Church that the sun revolved around the earth and that his faith shouldn’t require a reasonable explanation.

Luis, your reasoning is beyond flawed. It’s deadly.

You insist “You’re wrong, both on the infallibility (it was never used for anything relating to abortion) and on the rationale behind the notion that the soul enters the body at quickening. Our forbears weren’t stupid.”

Your dabbling in Theology is pitiful.
Even Aquinas, seeking to define new life, declared it as quickening.

As for the INFALLIBILITY, I’ll repeat and maybe you’ll absorb it this time. (Doubtful, but maybe.) The Church has INFALLIBLY declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That means that Mary’s soul bore no sin, NOT EVEN orginal sin, from the INSTANT OF HER CONCEPTION.

GET USED TO IT.

PS - re Galileo, it was only a matter of time 'til you threw his name into the mix. Now define the Church’s “infalliblity” in reference to Galileo’s belief system. Find it yet? No? Still it’s informative to learn that you consider your thinking on a par with Galileo’s.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Republican in the Federal Government have a good reason for voting against the programs.

A) They should be provided by the state.

Republicans in the state legislatures tend to vote against adding funding to those programs as well.

B) Any government overseeing 300 million people will never be able to efficiently support such social programs without wasting Billions of dollars.(That could have stayed in the States to support the programs more efficiently.)

There are two conflicting forces. The first is inefficiency, which grows with size. The second is economy of scale, which lowers cost with size. The economies of scale tend to prevail. If you have a separate health program in each state, you have 50 administrations, 50 different plans, 50 different sets of staff, 50 phone banks, etc. By combining them, they actually become more efficient, because there is much less duplication of effort. An example: New Zealand is a lot smaller than the US. You would expect sending a letter to cost less, right? After all, letters don’t have to travel as far and the post office would be more efficient because it’s smaller. But it costs more than 60 cents to mail a letter there, a lot less than it does here. This is because our post office has a lot more people using it, and thus can lower the per-unit cost. The same would apply to health care.

C) Some states do implement those programs already, my second child when I was going through some financially rough times was born under Sooner Care. We got off of it and WIC as soon as we got back on our feet though. (Which unfortunately a lot of people on social programs like to milk it for all its worth.)

Yes, it is good that it’s there, and it is meant to be used the way you used it. I’m sure some people do milk it, but if it means kids are eating better I can’t complain too much.

Our states are supposed to be 50 different little countries, not controlled by one federal government.

That pretty much ended during the World Wars and the Cold War, although yeah, that was the original intent.

I know that was off topic but it felt good to talk about something besides abortion. Any way you look at it, abortion is heart-wrenching and I wish we didn’t have to make all these difficult decisions about it.

 

[catharina]

I know that was off topic but it felt good to talk about something besides abortion. Any way you look at it, abortion is heart-wrenching and I wish we didn’t have to make all these difficult decisions about it.

Terrific. You got to feel good.

As for abortion, no decisions need to be made by Catholics.
The Church FORBIDS it. Case closed. The end.

(Quite sad that you won’t accept that on FAITH.
Remarkable that you “think” you know better.)

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Luis, your reasoning is beyond flawed. It’s deadly.

You insist “You’re wrong, both on the infallibility (it was never used for anything relating to abortion) and on the rationale behind the notion that the soul enters the body at quickening. Our forbears weren’t stupid.”

Your dabbling in Theology is pitiful.
Even Aquinas, seeking to define new life, declared it as quickening.

But surely he knew the embryo exists before quickening. So must he have believed it wasn’t alive before then?

As for the INFALLIBILITY, I’ll repeat and maybe you’ll absorb it this time. (Doubtful, but maybe.) The Church has INFALLIBLY declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That means that Mary’s soul bore no sin, NOT EVEN orginal sin, from the INSTANT OF HER CONCEPTION.

Wow, that’s quite the contorted line of logic! No wonder it took me so long to pick up on it. I’m sure you read it somewhere, that isn’t the sort of thing you can think up on the spot. But I guarantee it wasn’t the Vatican that came up with this tortuous line of reasoning. After all, there are two major flaws. The first is that it was clearly not the Pope’s intent to be able to extrapolate that conclusion. The second is that the word “conception” in the biological sense didn’t exist at the time the Immaculate Conception doctrine was written, meaning the fusing of sperm and egg. It’s like reading a line from scripture referring to a “key” and thinking it refers to a key on my computer keyboard. In the historical sense, “conception” meant the moment the soul came into existence, whenever that was. So Mary’s soul had no sin from the moment it came into existence. That’s what was declared infallible.

PS - re Galileo, it was only a matter of time 'til you threw his name into the mix. Now define the Church’s “infalliblity” in reference to Galileo’s belief system. Find it yet? No? Still it’s informative to learn that you consider your thinking on a par with Galileo’s.

Only because that example is so obvious you can’t deny it, like you’d find a way to do for virtually any other example I could possibly come up with. You don’t like it because it proves the Church can sometimes be wrong. I never said that I’m the only one that shares my beliefs, or that they’re original. They’re a compilation of things I’ve read from various scientists and theologians. And frankly, your logic with regard to infallibility of ensoulment occurring at the instant of biological conception, is a joke.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Terrific. You got to feel good.

As for abortion, no decisions need to be made by Catholics.
The Church FORBIDS it. Case closed. The end.

(Quite sad that you won’t accept that on FAITH.
Remarkable that you “think” you know better.)

We still have to make decisions as to how to incorporate abortion laws into our legal system. Frankly, this can turn into a nightmare quickly, if you equate abortion to murder.

 

[elts1956]

If you do not take care of the causes of abortion, you will not prevent abortion. The examples you used are not relevant now. They were, however, the norm when I was growing up and I believe those values were lost for the majority.
We now have a world where competition and survival of the fittest are the values. Social programs that support women and mothers are the first step towards stopping abortion.

Mother Theresa once received a large donation of money from a man. She told him that it must have hurt to give that much. When he told her it did not hurt at all, she refused his donation.

Luis made an excellent point when he asked what are we willing to do to stop abortion.
The award being presented to President Obama is meaningless. What is more meaningful is opening a dialogue that educates him on a deepening understanding of when life starts. You cannot reach the guy when you scream at him. You must approach his value system that supports women.

The Art of War states that the best way to defeat an enemy is to make him believe you are his friend. However, the president is not the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy.

So if I’m not mistaken, is this what you’re trying to say?:

• The USCCB has clearly said that every issue that is important to Catholic moral theology must be considered when deciding how to vote, and that Catholics should not be single-issue voters. I wasn’t a single issue voter. I voted against the issues that were threatening life itself. Abortion, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage, euthanasia.* Several bishops and priests disagree with this, saying that abortion trumps everything else. Yes it does. Without life and the protection of life we very quickly slide into a culture of death where nothing is more important than any other issue. Where all issues can be decided by each individual conscience. This will lead to chaos…
• You agree with these bishops and priests, rather than the USCCB, Yes they were much clearer and more direct. And in most instances I have a very moral conscience. Also these Bishops I speak of belong to the USCCB. and in fact have given virtually no consideration to issues like pollution, war, poverty, torture, and international cooperation when deciding how to vote.

Here’s my problem with the Republican party: their anti-abortion policies generally work by cutting funding from programs like USAID and stem-cell research, then they use the savings to wage wars and give tax cuts to rich people. Often, they’re pro-life only in name, so they can manipulate well-intentioned Christians. Can you name a single Republican-sponsored federal program that provided funding to reducing abortions? I bet you can’t. Democrats have funded programs like this though; in fact if you look at the numbers, the US abortion rates have gone up under Republican presidents and down under Democrat presidents since Roe vs. Wade.

Here’s my other problem: the Catholic Church has always been known for supporting knowledge, intelligence, and social justice. This stands in contrast to many American Christian groups, who often disparage intelligence and focus more on conversions (often from Catholicism) than they do on things like reducing poverty. By blindly following Republicans as long as they claim to oppose abortion, we lose our identity as Catholics and become just another easily-exploitable Christian group.

I have never given a bit of a hint that I am Republican. Perhaps you have shown the Republicans are a bit more moral than brand X by assuming that because I take a more conservative stance, I belong to a specific political party? Interesting.

 

[Ronald_E]

Giving the president an honorary degree which scandalizes the country and engaging with the president in dialog are two very distinct things.

Mapleoak, What I am saying is that we have to deal with the present reality with intelligence rather than outrage. We cannot get stuck on the honorary degree thing, that is nothing and takes our attention away from a golden opportunity to deepen his understanding of Christ. Nobody converts through protests that are motivated by outrage. Did you see the film Joy Noel about a true incident in WW I when the Allies and Germans stopped killing one another at a certain front in the war. It was Christmas and a priest said Mass and gave communion when all sides celebrated our Lord’s birth together.

That is the power of our faith in which God creates and gives us opportunities everyday of our lives to transform into His Will and not ours.