G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Thats not prudential judgement, prudence isn’t speculative its practical.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
It is what Archbishop Chaput describes as Mental Gymnastics worthy of an Olympic Gold medalThats not prudential judgement, prudence isn’t speculative its practical.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
My claim is more about the non-existence of a particular binding doctrine. It would be very surprising if the Church were to offer guidance on every possible doctrine she does** not **have.
You have found sources that support your opinion. That is not the same thing as validating your opinion, if by validation you mean transform it and elevate from the status of opinion to the status of binding doctrine.
The refutation is the non-existence of a solid argument on your part.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The very use of clever hyperbole like this is a good indication that this is not an official Church statement, but one person’s expression of his view. You would never find references to an Olympic Gold medal in the Catechism, for example, or in a papal encyclical.
M
Muzhik
Guest
Dude, I know this comment is a few days old, but after reading your continued emphasis on this argument over multiple threads, I have to respond and say that you are wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but greatly, massively, soul-scrunchingly-and-toss-away wrong. You are saying that we’re ignoring the elephant in the room, when in fact you are stating that it’s not really an elephant because its ears are too large (i.e., it’s an African elephant, not an Asian elephant.)
You mention the “two great Laws” without naming them. Here they are:
Note this: Loving G_D is the first and the greatest commandment. Loving your neighbor is important, but not as important as loving G_D. It is so important that we are forbidden from offering a single grain of incense to any other god, not to save our own lives, the lives of our families, the lives of our neighbors and townsfolk, nothing. So what does this have to do with abortion?
Leviticus and Deuteronomy both contain prohibitions against offering your sons or daughters as sacrifices to any of the surrounding Canaanite gods or godesses, who required the sacrifice of your first-born child: Ba’al, Moloch, or Astoreth. (Lev. 18:21, Lev. 20:2-5, Deut. 12:31, Deut. 18:10) This last one also includes a prohibition against practicing witchcraft. At the time, one of the things witches did was to provide potions, including potions that caused women to miscarry, i.e., abortifacients. You’ll find this in Rev. 21:8, where the English word “sorcerer” is used to indication someone who provided these “potions” in the context of worshiping idols. Since the rituals around these idols frequently involved some form of bi-sexual orgy (esp. regarding Pan), pregnancies would result. The potions would be administered, and the aborted results would be burned upon the altars.
Why did these people do this? For the gods such as Ba’al and Moloch, it was for prosperity. These gods were gods of rain: rain was considered to be the ejaculate of the gods showing they were happy with the sacrifices. For agricultural people, rain meant good crops and harvests, and so prosperity. For the gods such as Pan, it was to remove the inconvenient results of pleasure worship. Why do we abort children today? Frequently because we say we can’t afford them (prosperity), or as the inconvenient results of pleasure worship. Please note that we treat aborted fetal remains as medical waste and treat them accordingly: we burn them.
So when we are working to prevent the spread of “abortion rights” or SSM, it’s not because we’re focusing on sexuality to the exclusion of everything else. It’s because these activities have long and strong ties to the worship of false gods, whether or not we consciously recognize or acknowledge that connection today. (A quick Google search will turn up more cases than you might care to admit of former abortion clinic workers or magikal priests and priestess’ who will admit to the frequent occult activities surrounding abortion.) In working for the rights of the unborn, etc. we are working to recognize the first and greatest commandment:
**You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. **
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not at all the CCC was added above on war and just off the top of my head we could add the death penalty. Thus validating his opinion.
Very typical but I like your style, whats a “solid argument”?
Other people have addressed the other issues you raised, so I will take this one. Trump never said he will have the military target the families of combatants. He said that something along those lines might have to be looked into or considered at some point, but he in no way stated (at least to my knowledge) that a plan like that is something he’s definitively going to put forward and try to enforce.
C
Crossbones
Guest
I’m not surprised that you would feel that way. However, I firmly believe it is a mistake to depend on anyone’s personal interpretation of Catholic Church teachings as presented on these forums.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Actually, Bishop Kicanas would disagree with you
“It’s important to be able to speak knowledgably about those issues, and then to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference. It’s one thing to hold positions, it’s another thing to be able to get results. I think sometimes that’s discouraging, because people may propose positions that are along the lines of what we hold as a church, in terms of the dignity of human life, but they’re totally ineffective in being able to accomplish anything.”
So, it would seem the character of the candidate does matter to Bishop Kicanas.
C
Crossbones
Guest
Yes, he did.
He said that you have to ‘take them (the terrorist’s families) out’. Later he said you would do so ‘to make them suffer’ and it was an act of ‘retribution’.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
I’m not surprised by your response either, quite frankly. And posters like Bob aren’t giving their personal interpretation; you are. But that’s already been pointed out numerous times
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The paragraph doesn’t establish anything in the context and content of what we are discussing. He may very well have a point but thats not it.
You surely have something of substance if he is the “par excellence” of the point. In short I have to repeat my friends thinking, I love the way she does that too…
E
Exiled_Child
Guest
I don’t even think there is such a thing as a “lesser evil” in this instance. I would sooner cast my vote for Beelzebub than either one of them.
E
estesbob
Guest
I have provided sources that clearly enunciate Church teaching. it has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion.
E
estesbob
Guest
Only if we accept your interpretation of what he "meant " and ignore what he said.-but then that is a common problem non-Catholics have in trying to understand Church teaching.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Those sources that say exactly what you want are just opinions. Those sources the enunciate binding Church teaching require your interpretation to get them to say exactly what you want. There are no sources that you cite that do both.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
How do you interpret this so as to avoid the interpretation that character matters when voting:
“It’s important to be able to speak knowledgeably about those issues, and then to try to weigh the character of the person who is running for office – looking at the issues they propose, as well as their ability to put those issues into action, into legislation that will make a difference. It’s one thing to hold positions, it’s another thing to be able to get results. I think sometimes that’s discouraging, because people may propose positions that are along the lines of what we hold as a church, in terms of the dignity of human life, but they’re totally ineffective in being able to accomplish anything.”
E
estesbob
Guest
I interpret it as even if a person opposes abortion we are not required to vote for them and should take their character and there stance on the issues into account This would also come into play if both candidates had similar views on abortion. There is,of course, no doubt whatsoever about the (lack of) character of the person who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand which is why we can never vote for them.
E
estesbob
Guest
So tell me-where is room for interpretation in :
*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”
“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”
Cardinal Burke*
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
You can’t legislate morality. Separation of church and state people. Please.
- Status