There really are no “prolife” nor “pro choice” justices. There job is to uphold the constitution. Do we really expect them to overturn their own ruling on Roe v Wade? Don’t we really need and amendment to the constitution?
I’m glad you explained that. So, that I understand it:
Yea, I think we need to amend the constitution or wait for changes in medical science:
No, I’m afraid you didn’t get it.
They overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson, didn’t they, and the Dred Scott decision. Also, in imposing homosexual marriage nationwide, the court overruled previous precedent.
Cruz also wanted to know when the Democrats declared war on the Catholic Church with socialized meds, the Little Sisters of the poor and religious liberty of a formed conscience?
The Democrats actually declared war on the Lutheran church before the Catholic Church. In the Hosanna Tabor case, the EEOC sued the Lutheran church, claiming that the government, not the Lutheran church, had the right to decide who are legitimate Lutheran ministers and who are not. The Supreme Court decided with the Lutheran church on that one.
Most Catholics who claim that Catholics are not single issue voters have never read the context in which the statement was made . Here’s what Faithful citizenship says:
You misread Faithful Citizenship. You read the bolded word “may” as if it were “must”. Definition of “may”:
1. expressing possibility.
"that may be true"
2. expressing permission.
"you may use a sling if you wish"But that’s a rare event, right? So, we’re saying, except in the case of rare exceptions, that any comment by any bishop on abortion is correct and applicable for the entire Church.
Didn’t say you said this. It just seems that the other issues where a candidate supports an intrinsic evil such as torture, targeting noncombatants or unjust wars that those who support that candidate will use verbal arguments to draw away from the evil of that position and then claim that somehow the Church isn’t clear enough on the issue to hold the candidate’s position against the candidate. So, I’m just summarizing the common argument here: If a Republican candidate supports an intrinsic evil, then the Republican Catholic will claim that it is not an intrinsic evil or use a convoluted legal argument to justify their position (the verbal gymnastics that Archbishop Chaput speaks of).
Apparently, circumstances make it so, because according to many around here, the only issue that matters to Catholics in determining who to vote for is abortion. This is helped out by the Olympic-level verbal gymnastics used by many Catholics to justify their votes for other intrinsic evils such as torture, targeting noncombatants, racism and unjust wars that I have witnessed.
When applied to abortion, ‘may’ becomes a ‘must’.
…not even when he says:
Thats a strawman and according to this conversation
So we are Going to fight over what the meaning of “May” is. Of course this is not necessary since we have the guidance of numerous quotes from bishops Cardinals and Popes to tell us exactly what it means . So as we are seen when people thow out the line "Catholics are not single issue voters " they’re almost always using it out of context, implying that that means that we are not to concentrate on one single issue when in reality it means only that we are not required to vote for candidate based on one single issue . We most certainly are required to disqualify the candidate based on their support of abortion of which there is no doubt whatsoever.
Since no candidate is running on a platform of increasing poverty this really isn’t an issue. And of course poverty is totally irrelevant to those were denied the right to live. And as the quotes we posted show disputes over the level of funding for social programs does not rise to the level of abortion. For example:
It certainly is an issue. Poverty exists. I do not judge what will happen to poverty based on a candidate’s overt claim of wanting to increase it. I judge what will happen to poverty based on what I think the candidate’s platform will do regarding poverty. The candidate himself may disagree with my assessment of the result of his platform, and will swear up and down that he cares for the poor. But if his overall platform is not consistent with that claim, in my opinion, I am justified in thinking that this candidate will be hurtful to those in poverty. So for me, it is an issue.
These are not the only political questions that can come up affecting poverty.
If your misinterpretation changes a permission to disqualify a candidate into a mandate to disqualify a candidate, then yes.
Like neglect the priority and then in contradiction persecute the Church and poor in it based on speculation.
My original point is the division is corrected by the New Evangelization and within from the start.
Also a bit further in Matthew past the social teaching of the Judgement of Nations.
I hope you are right. But 'Pro-Life" candidate does not = SCOTUS appointment nor Pro-life appointment nor Pro-Life ruling nor case to rule in. Too many “ifs”. That does not mean I vote Democrat. I remain independent and only God knows what I will do election day.
