Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. It just means that you believe that is better that the state not ban abortions, and not that you believe that abortions are a good thing. You may even be pro-choice because you believe that if abortions are legal there will be fewer abortions – yes, that’s a paradox, but it’s not impossible.
To take another example, adultery is a mortal sin for Catholics, but do any Catholics think that the state should come in and make it a crime? And should Catholic voters be denied communion because they voted for a known adulterer like Senator McCain?
At least he didn’t appear to want it for the crime of adultery – or he may not have wanted stoning to be part of the penal system. He may have still wanted a penal system for crimes like theft and murder, and he may have been happy with punishments like fines and prison sentences for adultery – you really cannot tell either way from the incident.
I agree. If a prudential examination of the issue by an informed conscience leads you to that conclusion, then you’re fine.
Here, you’re attempting a weak analogy. While McCain WAS an adulterer, he doesn’t advocate adultery now. This analogy would be appropriate if Obama had in his past procured an abortion, but now stood opposed to it.
Back to the OP - my mother attends a Catholic church in Greenville, SC. It’s in a very poor, very run-down part of town, and the congregation is overwhelmingly African-American. I’ll have to ask her if her priest issued a similar statement - somehow, I have a feeling the answer will not only be “no,” but “hell, no.”
Well, in the real story, it indicates the message that justice should be tempered with mercy. There’s a reason that the crime of which the woman stands accused is adultery, not murder or arson.
Obama is being criticized by this priest for something he’s never done or been a part of (as far as we know), and doesn’t directly support. Obama is in favor of a woman’s right to choose; it’s not like he’s pushing for mandatory abortions.
Meanwhile, McCain most certainly sinned (according to the Catholics) but he gets a pass* because he’s not doing it right now (as far as we know).
*not that I think he should be getting hammered over it, but according to the priest’s own logic, he should be.
I suspect i’m probably motivated more by my general understanding of Christianity in my interpretation there, so I don’t think I have any standing to argue the point.
Obama most certainly advocates legal abortions. McCain has not made advocacy for adultery (legal or otherwise) a plank in his platform.
And that is a critical distinction in Catholic thinking, yes. Sin in the past we can presume to be repented; an on-going, obstinate refusal to stop sinning is a different story.
How can someone who has performed sinful behavior in the past be “presume(d) to be repented” unless they have actually done so? The fact that one doesn’t continue said sinful behavior might not be because the subject believes it is wrong or has changed his or her ways; it might be a question of opportunity. That is of particular interest in McCain’s (theoretical) case, seeing as he married the woman with which he admittedly committed adultery. What’s the point of repentance if one doesn’t actually need to repent?
Stand up for the little guy-like I mentioned Oscar Romero, or someone like say, Hugh O’Flaherty. Both clergy men, neither were wimps.
Also, shouldn’t taking communion and whether you do so or not, and why, shouldn’t that be between you and God and/or your priest? Why should this be a big public thing?
Well, in that case we can thus assume that McCain has fulfilled the three main legs of repentance. I didn’t know that he had fulfilled part #1 (acknowledgement of sinful behavior).
Support for the war and death penalty, now those are other issues, but it’s good to note that point. Thanks, Bricker.
