Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[SoCalRC]

So, you admit the Church has not bound anyone’s conscience in this matter?

The Church has acknowledged that there is room for disagreement on the application of the concept of Just War. Look at Ratzinger’s comments to the Bishops and look at the comprehensive explanation on the non negotiable moral obligation of peace in the Doctrinal Note from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

However, if one does not sincerely believe that the war is just - and by just, I mean meeting the Holy Tradition concept of just war, not the neoconservative idea of justified war, then voting for it is violating a non negotiable moral obligation, rendering a devout Roman Catholic unworthy of communion. War is a causal factor in murder, abortion, and euthanasia, all infallible teachings, so supporting one pragmatically is gravely evil.

 

[SoCalRC]

All the while demonstrating against the death penalty for the guilty…

Yes, we Roman Catholics certainly are stupid that way. Just because the Pope tells us that it is related to a consistant conception-to-natural-death concept of pro-life, many of us willfully suppress our vengeful human nature and follow.

You’d think we had some weird idea of being part of an apostolic Church with the Pope having special status or something.

Luckily, we have a practical Christian in charge of the country. You know, someone who has the good sense to publicly mock a condemned woman’s pleas for mercy, order that mitigating evidence be left out of clemency briefs, and has the good sense to torture worthless confessions out of people.

Just think, a soft in the head Roman Catholic like me would have never considered using torture of a man’s wife and children to get him to confess to owning an aviation radio found in a hotel, like that bad person Abdallah Higazy. So when an airline pilot came to claim it I also would never have had the good sense to have the government’s cohersive tactics redacted from the 2nd Circuit Cout of Appeals opinion - let alone the good sense to hold a press conference last week, like the President, and assert that anyone who questions the government’s right to torture innocent people, outside the rule of law and interntional treaties, is, of course, a terrorist sympathizer who hates America.

And that’s a case where no one died. Just think how my weird infinitely-valuable-creation-by-God beliefs about every human being would drive me when it gets to the tough stuff, like beating a middle aged man to death inside a sleeping bag or torture crucifixions involving a case of mistaken identity…

Thank goodness there are sensible Christians around to minimize Roman Catholic harm. You know, practical religious folks like Caiphus, who had the good sense to note that it would be better to sacrifice the one for the sake of the nation!

 

[fix]

The Church has acknowledged that there is room for disagreement on the application of the concept of Just War. Look at Ratzinger’s comments to the Bishops and look at the comprehensive explanation on the non negotiable moral obligation of peace in the Doctrinal Note from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

However, if one does not sincerely believe that the war is just - and by just, I mean meeting the Holy Tradition concept of just war, not the neoconservative idea of justified war, then voting for it is violating a non negotiable moral obligation, rendering a devout Roman Catholic unworthy of communion. War is a causal factor in murder, abortion, and euthanasia, all infallible teachings, so supporting one pragmatically is gravely evil.

Again, you accept the Church has not bound anyone’s conscience in the matter?

 

[fix]

I’m sorry, you’ve still lost me. We’d better back up further. Are you saying that we have no Christian obligation to the poor?

No. I think he is saying how that help is rendered, via the state, is a matter Catholics may hold varying opinions. What is not a matter of opinion is that the Church teaches we may not support direct abortion, euthanasia, contraception, and issues such as those.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m sorry, you’ve still lost me. We’d better back up further. Are you saying that we have no Christian obligation to the poor? Or that there is some burden of proof that the poor must pass on a massive scale for an obligation to apply?

I’ll type real slow for you.

You said “those children” are denied “basic rights.” When I challenged you to show me which rights they are denied, you changed your tack and claimed it’s the Magisterium, not the Constitution which says they’re denied rights.

So once again, cite for me a document where the Magisterium says American children are denied “basic rights.”

 

[estesbob]

I’ll type real slow for you.

You said “those children” are denied “basic rights.” When I challenged you to show me which rights they are denied, you changed your tack and claimed it’s the Magisterium, not the Constitution which says they’re denied rights.

So once again, cite for me a document where the Magisterium says American children are denied “basic rights.”

You know with SoCal the biggest evils in this country is always George Bush followed by the Republicans. His rants are all basically the same running down the two he hates the most . The topic at hand is really irrelevant -they serve merely as a springboard to once again tell us how evil Bush and Republicans are.

 

[estesbob]

Yes Why would anyone even need to ask?.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And it seems they feel the Church demands we pay more taxes – the solution to all problems.

If that’s true, then wouldn’t it follow that those who pay the most taxes are the holiest amongst us – not those who pay the least and carp others who pay more?

Shouldn’t these people leave the chat rooms and forums alone, and concentrate on making more money, so they can pay as much taxes as those they look down on?

 

[Ender]

Just think, a soft in the head Roman Catholic like me would have never considered using torture of a man’s wife and children to get him to confess to owning an aviation radio found in a hotel, like that bad person Abdallah Higazy.

I know nothing at all about this case but find the idea that we would torture women and children absurd. Here’s your chance to prove your point: what specifically was done that you consider torture?

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

I’ll type real slow for you.

You said “those children” are denied “basic rights.” When I challenged you to show me which rights they are denied, you changed your tack and claimed it’s the Magisterium, not the Constitution which says they’re denied rights.

So once again, cite for me a document where the Magisterium says American children are denied “basic rights.”

You missed a step. We started with you stating a very basic and Christian tenant. You asserted that if it was not present, no social justice could exist.

I simply turned the question around and asked if it applied to anything by fertized zygotes in your version of Christianity.

The answer appears to be “no”. Once born, you seem to assert that a person is then in the warm bossum of a secular geo political paridise and Christian principles are irrelevant unless it can proven that the earthly system is a complete failure and specifically identified as such by the Church.

I can contemplate a twisted version of Catholic pro-life teaching where we one only values life from conception to natural birth, but I cannot fathom a line of reasoning where Christianity is “bogus” unless a secular system is a complete failure. Jesus appeared to set no such criteria in his ministry.

Hence I’ve asked. It is hard to tell if you are being intentionally nasty to divert attention away from the fact that your assertions make no apparent sense, or just being yourself.

 

[SoCalRC]

And it seems they feel the Church demands we pay more taxes – the solution to all problems.

Ab surdem arguments work better if you start with something I’ve said. The idea that I would demand more taxes is absurd.

The Cato Institute (yes, the ultra conservative think tank) has pegged George W. Bush as the most spend happy president in history. Yes, even outspending LBJ.

The fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans have been slashed in a time of war with exploding deficits may or may not be a Christian issue, but it is most easily discussed in the context of citizenship. A generation that is not willing to pay its fair share of its own defense is a first in US history, and an utter embarasment.

Given what a guttless bunch of whiners the nation has become, wimpering and wetting ourselves when fear mongers shout “orange!”, it does not surprise me that so many are too cowardly to fight. But even the Romans were at least willing to pay for their own mercenaries.

 

[SoCalRC]

Again, you accept the Church has not bound anyone’s conscience in the matter?

On Iraq in particular? Only if one accepts the Church teaching of an apostolic Church.

As a general concept, you know we already disagree. I accept the Pope as the undisputed moral leader of the Church (per the Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council). As such, his opinion on application of Church teachings with regards to contemporary issues carries massive weight for me.

You have asserted that only infallible teachings bind Catholics, presumably leaving war, rape, pedophilia, beatiality, etc. up to the concience of individual Catholics.

Personally, I see no point in being Catholic over some other forms of Christianity if you are not going to consistantly recognize the Magesterium’s Gift of Authority, but we can agree to disagree.

 

[fix]

On Iraq in particular? Only if one accepts the Church teaching of an apostolic Church.

As a general concept, you know we already disagree. I accept the Pope as the undisputed moral leader of the Church (per the Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council). As such, his opinion on application of Church teachings with regards to contemporary issues carries massive weight for me.

He has a personal opinion on a concrete matter. Has he said Church teaching means this war is unjust?

You have asserted that only infallible teachings bind Catholics, presumably leaving war, rape, pedophilia, beatiality, etc. up to the concience of individual Catholics.

No, I have not. It seems you assert opinions of Popes bind every conscience?

Personally, I see no point in being Catholic over some other forms of Christianity if you are not going to consistantly recognize the Magesterium’s Gift of Authority, but we can agree to disagree.

This is a straw man. If you want to prove your point please start by stating what the Church actually teaches on some matter, rather than substituting your private opinion and attributing it to the Church.

The authority of the magisterium has not declared this war unjust. If the magisterium has please show us where and when?

 

[estesbob]

He has a personal opinion on a concrete matter. Has he said Church teaching means this war is unjust?

?

Here is what he said:

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

---

The latest pronouncement from the Vatican about the Iraqi war is that we should stay until the country is stable. Of course this statement is no more binding on Catholics and the opinion expressed by some Vatican officials that going to war at the rock was wrong.

 

[fix]

Just to put abortion, just war, and full communion into perspective:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=6463

 

[SoCalRC]

I know nothing at all about this case but find the idea that we would torture women and children absurd.

Yes, it must have been hard to tune out all that Blackwater testimony, the pesky torture document drop that was just published, the torture related questions directed at a potential new attorney general, and the status on 2 different international torture and rendition cases (all within the last couple of weeks)…

Here’s your chance to prove your point: what specifically was done that you consider torture?

The PDF of the 2nd court of appeals opinion was copied by several judicial research groups, as well as human rights groups, before it was recalled and redacted. Try looking at what extraordinary rendition is all about if you like.

But why would you? We’ve had sworn testimony from interogators that they routinely have used water boarding, a technique from the Spanish Inquisition, and also participated in an interogation where a 12 year old female relative was raped and sodomized “to help elicit answers” on the record for more than 3 years.

Like Saipan, there is nothing for me to ‘prove’. Everything is right there, for anyone who is willing to look,. But, for many people, it easier to live in a hamster bubble and tell themselves what fine Christians they are being.

The part folks like estesbob seem to have a really hard time grasping, it that D and R mean nothing to me. My point has never been R is bad or D is good (I’ve never even suggested voting for a Democrat on these forums). My point has been that when your loyalty to a political party starts taking precidence over your obligations to God, your priorities are wrong.

 

[buffalo]

Ab surdem arguments work better if you start with something I’ve said. The idea that I would demand more taxes is absurd.

The Cato Institute (yes, the ultra conservative think tank) has pegged George W. Bush as the most spend happy president in history. Yes, even outspending LBJ.

The fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans have been slashed in a time of war with exploding deficits may or may not be a Christian issue, but it is most easily discussed in the context of citizenship. A generation that is not willing to pay its fair share of its own defense is a first in US history, and an utter embarasment.

Given what a guttless bunch of whiners the nation has become, wimpering and wetting ourselves when fear mongers shout “orange!”, it does not surprise me that so many are too cowardly to fight. But even the Romans were at least willing to pay for their own mercenaries.

The President does not have spending authority. Congress does.

 

[SoCalRC]

Just to put abortion, just war, and full communion into perspective:

That is what I specifically said, yet you insisted it was not a ‘clear’ answer. Since you insisted that I speak on Iraq in pariticular, do you have any specific quotes from Pope Benedict XVI or then Cardinal Ratzinger you would like to share?

What you are ignoring (intentionally perhaps?) is my point about not honestly disagreeing about the application of Just War, but pragmatically supporting a war one knows is unjust.

Where, exactly, in Catholic teaching do you find it expressly approved to support a horrific attrocity for pragmatic reasons?

Would it be ok to use rape, violence, and other terrorist tactics to keep voters away from the polls to make sure that ‘pro life’ politicians are elected? If not, why would it be OK to accept war, which involves huge amounts of human suffering and attrocities on a massive scale for the same purpose?

I say if you embrace evil on a massive scale for some particular good, you are defying the Church on non negotiable moral principles. And, under the criteria explained in Sacramentum Caritatis, would be unworthy for communion.

 

[SoCalRC]

The President does not have spending authority. Congress does.

The President has veto authority. Notice he had no difficulty stopping spending on children’s health care.

He also happens to be the head of the party which controlled congress during most of his tenure.

 

[fix]

That is what I specifically said, yet you insisted it was not a ‘clear’ answer. Since you insisted that I speak on Iraq in pariticular, do you have any specific quotes from Pope Benedict XVI or then Cardinal Ratzinger you would like to share?

Which war was he referring to in the quote?

What you are ignoring (intentionally perhaps?) is my point about not honestly disagreeing about the application of Just War, but pragmatically supporting a war one knows is unjust.

What? Are you claiming one cannot examine the issue and conclude it is just?

Where, exactly, in Catholic teaching do you find it expressly approved to support a horrific attrocity for pragmatic reasons?

Where do you find horrific attrocities? WWII had those, but that does not make WWII unjust. It makes individual circumstances unjust.

Would it be ok to use rape, violence, and other terrorist tactics to keep voters away from the polls to make sure that ‘pro life’ politicians are elected? If not, why would it be OK to accept war, which involves huge amounts of human suffering and attrocities on a massive scale for the same purpose?

Straw man, again.

I say if you embrace evil on a massive scale for some particular good, you are defying the Church on non negotiable moral principles. And, under the criteria explained in Sacramentum Caritatis, would be unworthy for communion.

I say intentionally misstating Church teaching, or disassembling Church teaching, for a political end may put one out of full communion.

This thread is a good example of the problem with so called “Social Justice” issues and organizations. Church teaching gets inverted and used for a political end.