Yes, he does. But the church conflates arguments for the legal right with the commission of the act.
I think the KKK must have the right to speak their horrible words. That doesn’t mean I’m guilty of saying what they say.
Since the Church’s position is that abortion involves the death of a human being, I think analogies to mere speech are deficient.
I think I know exactly which church you’re talking about–it’s St. Anthony of Padua, isn’t it? When I was “shopping” around Greenville’s Catholic churches (after the disappointment with St. Mary’s), I went there for several masses. It’s run by the Franciscans, and is indeed heavily African-American. A very different atmosphere from St. Mary’s–quite refreshingly so.
This is my problem, too–even with a more liberal parish, they seem to expect you to believe in an Almighty. They’re being serious about all that Nicene Creed stuff*, after all! 
*which, of course, I can still recite by heart without skipping a beat. All those years of Catholicism have left some deep imprint in my brain.
Surely the deplorableness of the connected act doesn’t change the extent to which the connection is true? Responsibility doesn’t change depending on what you’re being asked to be responsible for, I would say. The analogy may not capture the full impact of the questionable act, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a reasonable one to draw. If we are responsible for that which we allow to happen through the law, then all of us are guilty for the KKK’s actions.
Just what gives this priest the idea that Obama is any more pro-choice than any other leading Dem of the past 30 years?! 
I saw you palm that card.
There are two leaps of inference in the above. The first was the idea that Obama is merely “allowing” the law. Instead, as President, he will be the Executive, responsible for appointing officials who will give life to the law; directly responsible for the appointment of judges who will interpret (and by that interpreation, weaken or strengthen) the law. He is, far from allowing the law to happen, an active player in making the law.
The second leap was “…all of us are guilty for the KKK’s actions.” That’s not true, or at least it’s too vague to be useful. What we (collectively) support is that KKK’s right to march and speak… NOT their more odious acts of violence.
Beats me.
The ones that have essentially turned a lot of prisons into motels … cable tv in jail?!
I always thought part of going to jail was punishment. Food, lodging, cable tv? I have to pay for all that by working. In return I follow laws. Unfortunately my tax dollars go to provide cable tv in jail. I may not be able to afford cable tv, but they can have it … I wouldnt mind seeing a return to the original penitentiary, Eastern State? The one that is all solitary lockdown, that was one of the first modern prisons. You commit a crime, you sit there and do your time in a 6x10 cell. Plenty of time to sit there and figure out what you did wrong.
I disagree. But okay, here’s a different example, something worse than the death of a human being:
Catholics can believe everyone should have the right to completely reject God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church, the saints, the Bible and the whole shebang, the right to fall willingly, nay eagerly, into the sins of despair–the wholesale rejection of salvation–heresy, apostasy, and the wholesale hatred of God. Catholics can vote to preserve these rights without themselves being guilty of heresy, despair, apostasy, and God-hating. Freedom of religion is based on these rights, yet the Church doesn’t condemn everyone who votes in support of the First Amendment.
What about starting wars?
I’m willing to accept the argument that supporting keeping abortion legal is intrinsically, deeply, and inherently immoral in some people’s eyes because it supports taking a human life. However, I have a question about a corollary. A while ago I read that a woman is four times more likely to have an abortion if her income is below the poverty level, and that makes logical sense to me. If supporting keeping abortion legal is immoral, is supporting the conditions which lead to a woman having an abortion also immoral and similarly objectionable? For example, if one main reason women have abortions is because they can’t afford medical care or unpaid time off from their jobs, wouldn’t opposing some sort of universal health insurance or paid maternity leave also have the effect of doing nothing to stop women having abortions and thus be as immoral as supporting keeping abortion legal?
I put abortion in the same broad category as divorce. I consider it immoral, but I realize there are circumstances under which it may be the best available alternative. I would like to see the number of abortions in this country decline as they have done since abortion was made illegal, which may make Giles’s paradox less paradoxical. However, if we do want women to stop having abortions, rather than simply make abortion illegal, which apprears to have little effect on the number of abortions per capita, I’d rather we addressed the underlying causes and did something about the circumstances which lead a woman to have an abortion. I have a lot of respect for the work the Catholic Church does for the poor in this regard, but I’m afraid I see their position of forbidding artificial birth control as increasing the likelihood a woman will need an abortion rather than decreasing it.
I do wonder if the Father allows people who are divorced, greedy or gossipy to take Communion.
Unless he also denies Eucharist to those who vote for pro-bombing GOP, isn’t he a hypocrite?
Oh, wait, you say, Barack is in favor of a war Presidency, too.
Yeah, & the GOP won’t really outlaw abortion.
:rolleyes:
I honestly didn’t mean to misstate. You’re right that I did, though. Apologies.
The “allowing” was not referring to the law, but to the abortions. That is, i’m not saying Obama is allowing the law which affects whether abortions are more possible; i’m saying Obama is affecting the law which allows abortions. IOW, Obama does not allow the law to happen, the law allows the abortions to happen. I don’t think that’s a leap of inference.
This, OTOH, is, and you’re right. I did mean just those abilities that are protected by free speech laws, but was far too vague. I think the question remains, though. If a person can vote for a President on the grounds of a particular platform which will allow more sin to take place, and by doing so commit a sin themselves, doesn’t that apply to those who vote for free speech as well as those who vote for the choice to have abortions? Not equally sinful things in Catholic eyes, so I would assume even if that’s correct that we are not equally at fault for those two. But at fault nonetheless?
You must have missed the part when the Pope specially (after making perfunctory gestures of “bad boy” about attacking Iraq, without the same level of outrage the Pope mustered against Communism all those years) invited Bush to a personal meeting (thus giving him the inoffical seal of approval) shortly before the 2nd election because (despite John Kerry being not only Catholic, but also against abortion) Bush looked to be a better candidate to be anti-choice.
At least, that’s what I heard recently as a reason to why Kerry lost the election. I don’t remember hearing it in the news myself at that time.
There’s your problem. Sounds more like vengeance to me. Being separated from society for years is punishment.
And that is why we changed. Your model conveniently forgets that 99% of the people sent to prison will one day come out. If we kept doing things your way, we ended up with far more repeat offenders causing more violence and damage when they get out. Society decided it was more productive to try to create prison conditions that resulted in inmates who were not borderline insane when they are released. That it does not satisfy your need for retribution is of little concern.
Again – it depends. If you’ll look at post #77 above, I noted that it’s not the action so much as the reasoning behind the action that creates a sin. If you vote for free speech rights intending that they be exercised to the good of the nation, and reluctantly accept that a secondary consequence is that they will be used as well by those NOT seeking salubrious outcomes, then you’re fine. But if you vote for free speech with the intent to assist the cause of neo Nazis, you’ve sinned.
But in #77 the reasoning you give as an example for someone voting for abortion to be avaliable suggests that in some cases, good reasoning cannot redeem a sinful act. The person in your example appears to have good at heart, yet that does not make their support not a sinful act. OTOH, it could be argued that the person supporting abortion does so intending that the ability be exercised only in cases wherein the mothere’s life is at risk, and reluctantly accepts that a secondary consequence is that the ability will be used in other cases. That the sinful nature of the decision in that case depends on the reasoning, also. And that therefore one may not sin themselves by supporting abortion law, as long as one’s reasoning is restricted to believing in the cases that the Church believes acceptable to be acceptable also, and that that others will exist as an unfortunate secondary consequence.
[vague recollection from talking to my sister about it, who is a religion teacher and got her master’s in Theology from Notre Dame a few years ago]There are something like seven conditions for a ‘just war’ (meaning a war that can be morally supported by a devout Catholic); Afghanistan didn’t meet all of them, and Iraq met even fewer. IIRC, the Pope did everything in his power to stop both of them, but ended up having very little effect.[/VRFTTMSAIWIARTAGHMITFNDAFYA]
I’m not sure I see where I did that. Here’s post 77:
Where do I say that good reasoning cannot redeem a sinful act?
You ever put your kid in front of the TV to keep him quiet (or had your parents do that to you?). Same principle. You can either pay x for TV, or 10x for more guards.