![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers"After 100 days, I am pleased with the progress we have made but I am not satisfied,"
"I am not a miracle worker,"
"I don't want to run auto companies, and I don't want to run banks; I've got two wars I've got to run already - I've got more than enough to do."
"I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationals were used, it was a mistake."
Well there's your new 'Cultural Revolution'. The thoughts of Chairman Obama....Now where's the Red Guard again, because evidently we have to re-educate all the capitalist running-dogs without the benefit of torture, nor anything more menacing than perhaps a herring. As for de-collectivising the banks and auto-industry....well there's socialism in action once again.
On a less sarcastic note, if the economic crisis does bottom out, what are the real chances of a resurgent Republican party? On a recent![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
convert_me page* there was a discussion that led me to conclude that it is impossible to be a Catholic and an active and pro-choice member of the Democrat party. Pertinent extracts as follows.
rest_in_thee wrote (as part of an ongoing debate):
Canon 915 is not specific to abortion, but the Church has made abundantly clear that support for legalized abortion, either by means of voting for a pro-choice politician in part because of their pro-choice stance, or for a politician to actively promote legalized abortion, constitutes grave sin under Canon 915. This was made clear by Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 2004, when he sent a memorandum to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who headed a bishop's conference task force on U.S. politicians. In that memorandum Ratzinger wrote that a proper pastoral response by a bishop for a politician who consistently promote legal abortion and euthanasia (and ESCR) would include warning the politician against taking Communion, and if their support is obstinate and persistent, then the minister must refuse them Communion. In the case of Sebelius, it can only be regarded as obstinate because her own bishop has met with her on several occasions, informed her of her sin, and warned her to not receive Communion. She has done so anyway, and thus according to Ratzinger and the CDF she is "obstinate" in her persistence in grave sin.
In that document, Ratzinger specifically mentioned Canon 915 and stated the following: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia ... 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." And again, understand here that ESCR is equally included among abortion and euthanasia, as the Church consistently teaches that the intentional destruction of human embryos is a grave and intrinsic moral evil.
To which I replied having dimly remembered some part of church teaching on torture:
So therefore to be a practising Catholic participating in communion it is impossible to be part of a legislature that cooperates in a grave moral evil.
Which means being a Republican acquiescing to torture is also liable to get communion withdrawn, perhaps?
and to which the response was:
Indeed.
So to use general and non exact language, it appears practising Catholics who wish to obtain communion can't be Dems who approve of abortion, or Republicans who turn a blind eye to torture. Time for both sides to examine their consciences, maybe?
*http://community.livejournal.com/convert_me/1282107.html#comments
"I am not a miracle worker,"
"I don't want to run auto companies, and I don't want to run banks; I've got two wars I've got to run already - I've got more than enough to do."
"I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationals were used, it was a mistake."
Well there's your new 'Cultural Revolution'. The thoughts of Chairman Obama....Now where's the Red Guard again, because evidently we have to re-educate all the capitalist running-dogs without the benefit of torture, nor anything more menacing than perhaps a herring. As for de-collectivising the banks and auto-industry....well there's socialism in action once again.
On a less sarcastic note, if the economic crisis does bottom out, what are the real chances of a resurgent Republican party? On a recent
convert_me page* there was a discussion that led me to conclude that it is impossible to be a Catholic and an active and pro-choice member of the Democrat party. Pertinent extracts as follows.rest_in_thee wrote (as part of an ongoing debate):Canon 915 is not specific to abortion, but the Church has made abundantly clear that support for legalized abortion, either by means of voting for a pro-choice politician in part because of their pro-choice stance, or for a politician to actively promote legalized abortion, constitutes grave sin under Canon 915. This was made clear by Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 2004, when he sent a memorandum to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who headed a bishop's conference task force on U.S. politicians. In that memorandum Ratzinger wrote that a proper pastoral response by a bishop for a politician who consistently promote legal abortion and euthanasia (and ESCR) would include warning the politician against taking Communion, and if their support is obstinate and persistent, then the minister must refuse them Communion. In the case of Sebelius, it can only be regarded as obstinate because her own bishop has met with her on several occasions, informed her of her sin, and warned her to not receive Communion. She has done so anyway, and thus according to Ratzinger and the CDF she is "obstinate" in her persistence in grave sin.
In that document, Ratzinger specifically mentioned Canon 915 and stated the following: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia ... 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." And again, understand here that ESCR is equally included among abortion and euthanasia, as the Church consistently teaches that the intentional destruction of human embryos is a grave and intrinsic moral evil.
To which I replied having dimly remembered some part of church teaching on torture:
So therefore to be a practising Catholic participating in communion it is impossible to be part of a legislature that cooperates in a grave moral evil.
Which means being a Republican acquiescing to torture is also liable to get communion withdrawn, perhaps?
and to which the response was:
Indeed.
So to use general and non exact language, it appears practising Catholics who wish to obtain communion can't be Dems who approve of abortion, or Republicans who turn a blind eye to torture. Time for both sides to examine their consciences, maybe?
*http://community.livejournal.com/convert_me/1282107.html#comments
