www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Number one supporter of abortions to speak at Notre Dame Commen..

Alexis I wasnt referring at all to party politics.
Just those who call themselves Christian and justify certain issues as abortion as one of them. (And that is just one issue.)
How can a Christian in their right mind defend such a position.
Stephanos I

Alice be prepared. We havent seen anything yet.
The actions of the past few months, senseless murderings will become the norm of the land.
The floogates are opened and we are about to see the whirlwind of what we are going to reap for the last 30 years.
Christ has triumphed.
Stephanos I

John,

Nothing is worth the million deaths from abortion the 40 million in the U.S. (since it was legalized) and from the untold millions of abortions from around the rest of the world.

We're talking past each other. I'm not talking about whether abortion is right or wrong. I'm talking about how to win elections in order to make abortion illegal again.

And so, my argument with you and the rest of your kind --the conservatives-- is with your methods, your alliance, and your fanatical obsession with abortion. And that's because all three have failed to make abortion illegal again.

Your methods have failed. Abortion was legalized in the United States in 1973. Since then, anti-abortion advocates have pressed for making abortion illegal again: either by legislation or by packing the courts with anti-abortion supporters. It has been 36 years and counting, and abortion is still legal.

Moreover, your political alliance has failed. The social conservatives, the Church and the Republican party made an alliance over the last 30+ years. The alliance was supposed to stand up for morality, including the end of abortion. But it didn't quite work out that way. The Church lost a lot of its moral credibility with pedophile priests and its other scandals. The Republican Party lost a lot of its moral credibility with its morally controversial decisions -- including (but not limited to) starting the war in Iraq, ignoring the poor, mocking the needs to protect the environment, and so on. That leaves the social conservatives left holding the bag. Honestly, I ask you: has it occurred to you that you are being exploited? Specifically, has it occurred to you that the Republican Party and certain elements in the Church are only too happy to dangle the prospect of making abortion illegal -- "one day" -- just to guarantee getting your votes and your money and your support?

Finally, your fanatical obsession with abortion has failed. Yes, it is an obsession: because that is all you seem to focus on. Yes, it is fanatical because you pursue it even to the detriment of your own cause. Here is how: You have had almost 40 years to persuade a majority of the American people to make abortion illegal again. And, you have failed. And that is because of your anger, your eagerness to condemn, and your reticence to co-operate or even appear to *care* about other people with the same degree of passion as you feel for the fetus. So, everyone else concludes that you really don't care that much about them, that you care most about the fetus; and they vote for someone else.

Also, John, I am fed up with you accusing me of not being a Catholic because I disagree with you. I am also offended that you "require" me to respond to your questions. I know that this is your discussion forum. Delete my account or ban me if you wish. But I refuse to be your sycophant.

And none of that, by the way, changes the facts:

-- After 36 years, abortion is still legal in the United States.

-- That means, the current political methods, alliances, and attitudes of anti-abortionists have failed.

-- And that means, anti-abortionists will have to try something different politically if they want a different political result.

The fetus doesn't vote. Adults vote.

And so, if you and your fellow conservatives want to *win elections* in order to end abortion, you must persuade a majority of adult people to vote against abortion. And to do that, you have to convince a majority of adults that you care about them and their interests as much as you care about the fetus. It's as simple as that.

-- John

Ryan,

I posed the question because of the way you developed your question. I wanted to be sure you were not aware of some position of the bishops concerning the pastoral care of homosexuals that advocated that sodomy laws be repealed or not enacted. That is, if I were to say I advocate a return to a form of sodomy laws that, even though virtually unenforceable, in taking a position against sodomy thereby served at the least as a moral stance (which any number of laws do), a warning, or a potential prohibition, would I then be in conflict with "the Church's teachings concerning the pastoral care of homosexuals" as you question? If not, what is there to "reconcile" as you imply?

Dn. Anthony

It's death by a thousand cuts and we are on cut number five.

Alexis,

The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally opposed the legalization of divorce and contraception. Not so long ago, the Church even lobbied agressively to prevent Ireland from legalizing some forms of divorce. The Church isn't just opposed to the legalization of no-fault divorce; it is opposed to the legalization of all divorce. Historically, the Church has also supported sodomy laws. Keep in mind that prior to Vatican II, even the concept of religious liberty for non-Catholics was opposed, called by Pope Pius X "insanity" and "heresy." Traditional Roman Catholic teaching (that is, pre-Vatican II) promotes the notion that the Catholic Church should be the state religion and that Catholic moral law should be the basis for civil law with the Pope exercising supreme authority over all temporal powers (see Unum Sanctum ). This is precisely why the Society of Pius X was formed. Because traditionalists at Vatican II realized that the Council was about to overturn centuries of Catholic teaching.

In light of all of this, it should not be surprising that the Church equates political and moral reasoning. It is why the Catholic Church publishes extensive voting guides and why it publishes a several hundred page social catechism as a supplement to the already substantial Catechism of the Church. It is also why American suspicions about the loyalty of Catholics were not entirely without basis.

Several members here have said that what is needed is a Catholic monarchy. This is good traditional Catholic social teaching. And since the Church sees the political arena as something to be taken captive for Christ, then it makes sense that the Church would be so adamant that all Catholics strictly follow the political reasoning of the Church.

Now, in light of John's (our Administrator) comments and other comments, can one conclude that the only true Christians who will be acceptable to Christ on judgment day will be those who do all that is in their power to end abortion and who vote exactly as the Church tells them to without any disagreements whatsoever?

I ask this question because it disturbes me to see some folks using hell-fire as a threat for all of those who, while agreeing about the grave immorality of abortion, believe that there are good prudential reasons for voting for some politicians who happen to be pro-choice. Basically, what you folks are saying is that only those who actively and passionately vote and campaign against abortion are true Christians. You pretty much said that John (harmon3110) is not a Christian. I find this to be unfortunate. And frankly, what I see this thread doing is generating hysteria.

Joe

Fr. Deacon Anthony:

Why not have laws against each and every action that is sinful, then? But this is the reason for my initial question: I believe that sodomy laws have more to do with contempt for/hatred of/fear of homosexuals than they do with using secular law for reinforcing religious values. This is why I find them to be irreconcilable with what the Church has stated concerning the way in which homosexuals should be treated. Furthermore, I believe that having laws that are not enforced at all has the potential to undermine other laws. Lastly, I believe that it would be hypocritical on my part to advocate that homosexual acts be outlawed and those who practice them consensually be subject to the possibility of prosecution and punishment if I am not willing to have the sins to which I am prone (say gluttony) criminalized and to have myself subject to prosecution and punishment by the government.

Sincerely,

Ryan

The criminalization of gluttony is an interesting idea. I believe the desert fathers and early monastic writers considered gluttony the worst sin of all. If you could not control your craving for food, how could you expect to control your other bodily and spiritual urges?

Sorry, I can't write more, because I have to get back to my dinner

If common eating were a sacrament, especially one that is an image of the union of Christ and the Church, and one that also aspires to the procreation and education of children, then I would follow your reasoning. I think that to argue we do not legistate against guttony (although we do against drugs and alchohol) or lying in general (although we do against perjury) or lust (although we do against rape, pedophilia, etc.), therefore, we should not legislate against, whatever (e.g homosexual acts), is to abandon a proper proportional moral discernment.

If in your conscience you feel that your gluttony is of the same proportion as homosexual acts, then YOU should advocate that gluttony be prohibited as are homosexual acts and not that since your gluttony is not prohibited by law, neither should homosexual acts be prohibited.

I thought that common eating, in the case of Holy Communion, is a sacrament.

Fr. Deacon Anthony:

What penalty would you impose upon those who would be prosecuted and convicted of sodomy? If you were to have a homosexual sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, or child, would you want him or her to be subject to arrest, prosecution, imposition of legal penalty, and the consequences of a criminal record?

Fr. Deacon Anthony:

I am aware of the concept of moral proportionality, and I am aware that not all sins are of the same degree of gravity. At the same time, I view myself as no less a sinner than the one whose particular sins are more grave than mine; rather, I view the one who is prone to graver sins than the ones to which I am prone to have, for reasons perhaps known to God alone, received a greater burden than I have received.

I was hoping that I didn't even need the word "common" to convey the context, but put it in for good measure, which apparently was not enough. Of all the ritual features I could mention, for "common" eating it is not the case that a priest asks that the Holy Spirit change the food and drink to become the body and blood of Christ, nor do I kiss the hand of another man you might proffer me a small piece of bread.

A request to make a sincere act of contrition and the resolve, through God's grace, to sin no more.

If I were a judge, prosecutor or in the legislature, I think sodomy could be treated, legally, similar to prostitution (where it is prohibited).

I acknowledge your awareness, and concur with your appraisal. In XC, Dn. Anthony