Posted on 11/22/2009 11:00:13 AM PST by Pope Pius XII
In the case of politicians, I agree.
In the case of private persons, the big difference is that, in most cases, you are not dealing with the issue of scandal. People aren't publicly berated for their sins, unless it rises to the level of scandal. His public proclamations of being a "good Catholic" while being an outspoken supporter of abortion fall into that category.
Politicians have, in addition, an extra responsibility to not "materially contribute" to abortions or euthanasia. The laity only fall into that sin if they vote for a pro-abortion politician (if a pro-life politician is available in the same race), particularly if one of their primary reasons for supporting that politician is his/her position on abortion. A public official commits grave sin by introducing, cosponsoring, or even voting for measures that make abortions more available. When he touts his voting record on that subject, he elevates that issue from that of being a private "grave sin" to being a public scandal.
BTW, when you read about "scandal" in the Church, there is a specific meaning: Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired.
A public figure's support of a "pro choice" position (the most common being "I personally would never have anything to do with abortion, but I don't want to impose my views on somebody else") is that it leads other Catholics into believing that it's proper to hold that kind of position and, perhaps, in the right circumstances, that having an abortion is acceptable.
Patrick went way further than ‘beliefs’. Way further in public statements about the Church.
He left his Bishop no choice but to rebuke him. Which he did in private, and in response to Kennedy’s public statements responded to him in public.
It’s not just the kennedy’s that should get this from the Catholic Church.
Oh, and you wait, obammy is gonna tax the church. BET.
Because it’s not a matter of his beliefs. He claims he believes what the Church believes.
The problem is his actions. He has acted to keep abortion legal and to make embryo-killing legal etc.
Don’t you see a difference?
Capital punishment deals with guilty life. Abortion takes innocent life
Apples and oranges. Category error.
“Category error” - really. Nice to know you feel free to speak for god.
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
“Category error” - really. Nice to know you feel free to speak for god.
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
Sorry about the double post. I would also invote you to examine the case of Randal Adams, and tell me that errors cannot be made.
“Category” error doesn’t speak for God. It’s a matter of rules about reasoning.
Your second reply shows that you struggle with matters of logic.
Capital punishment takes a guilty life.
Abortion takes an innocent life.
That’s all I said. I said nothing about if and when capital punishment should be exercised.
Nothing.
Nothing.
I just pointed out that the two actions have a very different premise. Therefore, they cannot be equivalents.
To take the life of someone mentally incompetent is to take a non-guilty life. If the justice system finds someone guilty who is innocent, the fault lies with the justice system. The justice system then has to be fixed.
But that is logically irrelevant to abortion. Taking the life of someone falsely found guilty would be an abuse of capital punishment because, as I started out by pointing out, those who say capital punishment is justified say it is justified only on the basis of guilt.
If our justice system truly can no longer distinguish between guilty and innocent, then we’ve got lot bigger problem than capital punishment.
But legalizing the deaths of obviously innocent people by the millions might just contribute to an inability to distinguish well between guilty and innocent, dontcha think?
Nice way to hijack a thread with illogic.
bump
“The Church does not dispute the authority of governments to impose the death penalty, but encourages it to be a penalty used only in extraordinary circumstances.”
This is correct.
BTW Biden has long been refused communion from a few priests in his local area as I understand. Its pretty quiet isn’t it?
Ratzinget isn’t even a bishop. At least Wojtila was - of Cracow.
signed,
a Sedevacantist
(wiki it if you don’t know the term)
Bishop Thomas J. Tobin is the first Bishop to do something publically. Since has stood up and acted — many other Bishops will follow his lead.
This might help Kennedy save his soul.
Here is why I think the church should not single out one person for what others may do.
I used to belong to the Greek Ortho. Church. I had seen so many marriages fall apart. Many failed due to extra-marital affairs with people in this same church. Now why is the church marrying people who have done this but the Catholic Church tells someone like Kennedy, no, you cannot take communion?
I guess I just look at it differently. Also, so many in the church I belonged to were very pro-choice and while I do not know if any have had abortions (I really do not want to know), they and the adulterers continue to line up for communion.
I know we are not perfect but this seems hypocritical to me.
Orthodox have relaxed the rules on remarriage after divorce. Catholics who remarry after a divorce are barred from Communion unless they abstain from sexual relations.
If it can be shown that the first “marriage” was invalid, they can remarry and receive Communion.
A lot of people don’t like this. The Church’s rules are just as tough on divorced and remarried, indeed more so, than anything Bishop Tobin has laid on Kennedy.
Granted, a lot of people defy the rules. But that’s on their heads, just as Patrick Kennedy’s defiance of his bishop is on his head.
You admit you only know Orthodox practice and you don’t like it. Why not find out first about what Catholic practice is before denouncing it?
Say what you will, the Catholic Church is the only Christian group even faintly trying to hold the line against the tidal wave of sexual license and culture of Death.
There’s plenty to fault the bishops for. They’ve screwed up badly over the last 40 years. But the scene among Protestants and even Orthodox (on remarriage, contraception, abortion) is worse.
I brought it up because Orthodoxy is much like Catholicism without a Pope.
The marriages I referred to were from divorces due to adultery and the adulterer went on to marry the one they had the affair with.
On the other hand, shouldn’t this be between God and Kennedy or the people I described above? I think when we get into the man made doctrines of denominations, something gets lost. I am sure Protestants will say that what the Bible says is the ultimate answer.
I do not want to start a firestorm as I am just bringing this up for simple debate. I do not want anyone to be offended.
I’ll try once more. Kennedy is a public figure. His actions as a legislator have effects on many other people. He made public what the bishop wrote to him privately. Do you get it? KENNEDY MADE PUBLIC WHAT THE BISHOP WROTE TO HIM PRIVATELY.
Why? Because Patrick Kennedy is playing political games. He wants to portray himself as a poo’ widdle victim martyr of the BIG BAD MEANIE BISHOP so that he can be free to legislate immorally.
Abortion is a public issue. It is not a denominational issue. It is not even a purely religious issue. Either the unborn child is an innocent human individual or it is not. If it is, then it is immoral to kill it. If it is not, who cares?
This issue is decided by reason, medicine, universal principles of justice (taking innocent human life is always wrong). The Catholic Church opposes abortion not out of some goofy private religious sentiment but out of universal principles of justice. Debates over what is right and wrong are part of public life. Kennedy has taken a position on this issue that is wrong by universal principles of justice. Sadly, too many people who should know better give him a pass. He and his Democrap buddies for 25 years have claimed that it’s just a private matter between them and God.
When his bishop, to whom he is subject spiritually speaking, admonishes him about his error in universal principles of justice, he responds with “BIG BAD MEANIE BISHOP GET YOUR GRUBBY HANDS OFF OF ME. I’m personally opposed but publically in favor of killing babies. Leave me alone or else I’ll denounce you as religion interfering in public life.”
And you fall for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.