I know the argument well, but I try not to let my politics be influenced by others. Yes, I was castigated soundly on this forum for voting for a 100% pro-life third party candidate. But that’s for another thread and another election.
Good post and let’s not forget the aspect of the $$$$$$. The abortion mills are a serious multi-million dollar industry with profit at the forefront.
By your definition Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and the Kennedys are all pro-life because they all take the same phony line Drinan did…“0, I morally object to abortion” then they proceed to vote for every pro-abortion measure presented to them. The prevaricator here is Drinan not me because actions always speak louder than words. You are defending the indefensible. Drinan by publically supporting abortion put himself outside the Church…can anyone spell heretic?
it is arguable that the most egregious thing Father Drinian did was to formulate the bogus" it’s okay to support the legality of abortion as long as one is personally opposed to it" theory In addition to leading millions of Catholics astray it it gave political cover to generations of Democrat Catholic politicians
Yes they could be pro life as life issues encompass issues far beyond a single issue. And perhaps Father Drinan was not pro abortion but merely pro choice.as far as what the law of the land should be in a democracy of plural beliefs on this issue. And one may or may not be in 100% adherence but how is one “outside the Church” when inside the Church, the Church considers one a Catholic.
Were you castigated by the forum for not choosing betwen the lesser of 2 evils who actually had a chance at being elected?
I am not blinded by party loyalty, in fact, I have no ties to either major party. Nor can I control how others will vote, nor can I look into a crystal ball to determine the outcome of an election prior to voting. I voted in good conscience for a principaled, pro-Constitutional, pro-life candidate since some day I will have to account for my actions before my God.
Sounds perfectly reasonable (and virtuous) to me.
I understand as I myself have voted for candidates not of one of the major parties. On the POTUS level though the 2 majors basically control debates, ballot access and such. And with the US Electoral College system unfortunately Mike Bloomberg is probably right when he said when asked if he would consider a run, that in our 2 party system it is impossible for a 3rd candidate to win enough Electoral College votes to actually be elected POTUS. So in that sense we don’t need a crystal ball other than to know which of the 2 majors are going to get in.
Yes. Fr. Drinan was part of a group of priests who met in 1964 in Hyannisport with Edward and Robert Kennedy to help them formulate a “Catholic” position for the support of birth control. (Source) These priests, Fr. Drinan in particular, ended up advising a policy which was not consistent with Church teaching, but allowed Catholic politicians to continue to support Democratic orthodoxy, which eventually included rejection of anti-abortion legislation, even rejection of a ban on partial-birth abortion.
CMatt, what does it mean to be “merely pro choice?”Yes they could be pro life as life issues encompass issues far beyond a single issue. And perhaps Father Drinan was not pro abortion but merely pro choice.as far as what the law of the land should be in a democracy of plural beliefs on this issue. And one may or may not be in 100% adherence but how is one “outside the Church” when inside the Church, the Church considers one a Catholic.
Perhaps one day with a true grassroots movement, we’ll see a win for a third party candidate. I never believed the liberal McCain was pro-life and based upon other major issues, I had no reason to vote for him. But a good candidate’s lack of viability is no reason to reject them as that somehow distorts the entire concept of choice in a free voting process, imho. We must make the decision from our own perspectives and formation of conscience, and yes, I did get a lot of flak for the lesser of two evils argument.
Just one of the vast arrays of euphemisms that are crucial to abortion apologists. It ranks up there with product of conception, reproductive rights , personhood, etc -all part of the arsenal used to try and obscure the fact they support the right of a woman to kill her child
blob of tissue
And pro-choice sounds so much nicer than pro-abortion.
That is the CENTRAL point. Nice call, tigg.
While I understand many here do not understand this view, what I mean by it is Father Drinan, et al, the Bidens, Pelosises, Kennedys of the world are Catholics opposed to abortion, understand how a law of the land is forged, and merely may understand how the law of a democracy of plural beliefs might have to differ from Catholic Church law now and then. Again though I understand this may be a difficult concept for some to grasp. And I just think instead of some saying they are outside the Church when clearly the Church says they are Catholics that maybe a better way could be found to describe them so people are not led to think they are no longer Catholic according to the Church. Peace.
It is not a difficult concept to grasp it all. Catholics trying to rationalize putting their politics ahead of their faith would much rather posture themselves as supporting the rule of law rather than admit the obvious-they have rejected Church teaching on abortion and believe a woman should have the right to kill her child.
Thank you
Completely agree with you, bob.