The Main Reason I Won't Vote For John McCain
"Suffer the little children"
When Jesus said the above quote, I'm fairly sure He meant ALL of the little children.
I'll wholeheartedly agree that the Obamanation is a first class baby-butcher. After all, in regards to children who survived the abortion procedure, he's the same guy who did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."
All that aside, it's time for an integrity check... there's no getting around it - John McCain is also in favor of murdering children.
Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com; (Emphasis mine)McCain Takes Obama to Task on Abortion, Still Defends Embryo Destroying Research
McCain brought up his pro-life record on abortion at the meeting on Thursday, after a discussion about the problem of sexually graphic material on the internet.
"I also would like to say one other thing very quickly to you - that is, I am proud of my record of protecting and advocating the rights of the unborn. I believe this is also an important issue..."
"Life means the rights of the born and the unborn," McCain continued. "You can count on my active advocacy for the rights of the unborn."
The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that McCain continues to stand by his support for embryonic stem cell research.
McCain told his Union Station audience, "At the moment I support stem cell research [because of] the potential it has for curing some of the most terrible diseases that afflict mankind."
McCain's staunch position on embryonic research is puzzling pro-life voters, however, since to date no therapies have been developed from ESCR, while scientists have indicated that embryonic stem cells have a significant risk of growing into tumours or being rejected by the patient as foreign tissue. On the other hand, adult stem-cell research, which does not involve the destruction of human embryos, has made historic leaps forward in regenerative medicine, yielding numerous therapeutic successes in just the past few years.
In a conference call with journalists, Frank Donatelli, deputy chair of the Republican National Committee, was asked to explain McCain's ignorance of these major scientific and medical advances of adult research and his continued support for embryonic research.
According to Donatelli, McCain is watching very carefully the scientific developments on the matter so that "we won't have to go there." Well, thanks a lot, grrl frayun'! What the hell kind of answer is that? "Won't have to go there"... Good Lord. Did Donatelli snap his fingers as he said that?
Anyhow, unless McCain fully, sincerely and substantially renounces his stance on ESCR, there simply is no way I can vote for him. We all know what the five non-negotiables are. We can't pick-and-choose. We either abide by them all, or throw them all out the window. Period, end of story.
And I know that I'm not the only Catholic who feels this way. McCain's style of killing children is a quieter, not as messy, more subtle form of slaughter. If mass murder could ever be described as antiseptic, this is it.
It's time to cut through the bullshit - when we face the reality of when it comes down to the business of killing the absolutely most vulnerable, John McCain is nothing more than a kinder, gentler Barack Obama.
"Suffer the little children"
When Jesus said the above quote, I'm fairly sure He meant ALL of the little children.
I'll wholeheartedly agree that the Obamanation is a first class baby-butcher. After all, in regards to children who survived the abortion procedure, he's the same guy who did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."
All that aside, it's time for an integrity check... there's no getting around it - John McCain is also in favor of murdering children.
Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com; (Emphasis mine)
McCain brought up his pro-life record on abortion at the meeting on Thursday, after a discussion about the problem of sexually graphic material on the internet.
"I also would like to say one other thing very quickly to you - that is, I am proud of my record of protecting and advocating the rights of the unborn. I believe this is also an important issue..."
"Life means the rights of the born and the unborn," McCain continued. "You can count on my active advocacy for the rights of the unborn."
The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that McCain continues to stand by his support for embryonic stem cell research.
McCain told his Union Station audience, "At the moment I support stem cell research [because of] the potential it has for curing some of the most terrible diseases that afflict mankind."
McCain's staunch position on embryonic research is puzzling pro-life voters, however, since to date no therapies have been developed from ESCR, while scientists have indicated that embryonic stem cells have a significant risk of growing into tumours or being rejected by the patient as foreign tissue. On the other hand, adult stem-cell research, which does not involve the destruction of human embryos, has made historic leaps forward in regenerative medicine, yielding numerous therapeutic successes in just the past few years.
In a conference call with journalists, Frank Donatelli, deputy chair of the Republican National Committee, was asked to explain McCain's ignorance of these major scientific and medical advances of adult research and his continued support for embryonic research.
According to Donatelli, McCain is watching very carefully the scientific developments on the matter so that "we won't have to go there."
Anyhow, unless McCain fully, sincerely and substantially renounces his stance on ESCR, there simply is no way I can vote for him. We all know what the five non-negotiables are. We can't pick-and-choose. We either abide by them all, or throw them all out the window. Period, end of story.
And I know that I'm not the only Catholic who feels this way. McCain's style of killing children is a quieter, not as messy, more subtle form of slaughter. If mass murder could ever be described as antiseptic, this is it.
It's time to cut through the bullshit - when we face the reality of when it comes down to the business of killing the absolutely most vulnerable, John McCain is nothing more than a kinder, gentler Barack Obama.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
6:32 AM
30 Comments:
Someone has apparently opened Caveness' perverbial political can of Whoop Ass!
And we all get to watch! OORAH!!
Ok...so when Obama wins and we STILL have both legal abortion AND stem cell research, as opposed to JUST legal stem cell research, we can blame voters like you, right?
(at least there is a slight CHANCE that McCain would do something like allow abortion to be illegalized, while there is NO chance that would happen under Obama.)
seriously, pick the better of two evils.
Because your vote will only hurt the pro-life cause if you vote for anyone else! (since there is no chance they will win.)
MJ,
So just throwing you hands up in the air, and clucking "well, I voted for the lesser of two evils"... is THAT the answer?
If McCain is elected, and ESCR is still the order of the day, we can all thank voters like you, right?
I thinhk your time would be better spent forcing McCain to renounce his past favorable attitude towards ESCR.
I'd also like to remind you that ESCR is one of the 5 non-negotiables, right? Does not The Church correctly state that ESCR is intrinsically evil? Yep... sure does. But your'll still vote to place a man who is a proponent of an intrinsic evil, and you have no qualms over that, 'eh? Hmmm...
Lastly, I'm not all that arrogant as to think that I could somehow convince Christ that me voting for a baby-killer was somehow acceptable because "his hands aren't as bloody as the other guys".
I suggest you take your head out of the sand, and strive to get McCain to become totally pro-life.
Caveman,
I gotta take my hat off to you! You've summed up my feelings about this election: there is no one that I, as a Catholic, can support. The best thing I can think of this year is to vote third party.
That way, my vote gets counted as one that didn't go to the Republicrats, didn't accept that some evil is ok, but just not to much. (After all, that's like heavy petting--if some's ok you will eventually go for too much!)
I'm thinking libertarian---their guy is pro life, at least.
Dear Cave Man,
Please take some time and read what the Church actually teaches regarding voting....you will find MJ is correct....don't take our word for it.....Please go and read
Anne
I'm writing myself in for president, I may have no shot at winning, but i'll sure hold to the Catholic Principles far better than any of these 2.
Barbara,
I have read Church teaching on abortion. I fully understand the meaning of "murder". I understand the meaning of "intrinsically evil". I understand the meaning of "automatic excommunication". I understand the meaning of "mortal sin". I understand that a "prpoerly formed conscience" is.
Also, I understand what "Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support" means.
Lastly, I know what the official Teaching of the Catholic Church is. I also know that some vauge, wiggle-room laden pronouncement from the USCCB is far from official, binding upon pain of sin, Church Teaching.
Now you do, too.
MJ and Barbara,
The lesser of two evils is still evil, a choice for for which a Catholic can never opt.
I agree with you Cavemen, however what would you guys suggest we do? Obama is going to win unless something really good happens. The MSM is squarely behind him and McCain is too scared of being called a bigot to politically destroy him.
Now because of the gun-grabbing, commie liberal PC BS that is running our legal system, self-defense is against the law, ergo I can't vote! But if I could, whom would you guys suggest?
VSO,
We need to put on the pressure. Like I said, when McCain "fully, sincerely and substantially renounces his stance", then he'll be palatable.
Thoughts?
None. Can't teach an old dog new tricks. One theory is to let the Dems win so that things will get so bad, the GOP will return to it's conservative principles and get the RINO's out. I'd say go 3rd party if there was one who could possibly win. One's things clear to me: the commie baby-killer neo-pagan sodomy party is united; conservatives are not.
To all who have commented. Listen to these examples of reasoning.
1. They are just going to go out and get abortions anyway only they will do it in the back alleys and hurt themselves, we need abortion so it can be done in a fashion that is least dangerous to women.(lesser of two evils, passed an evil law that has killed millions of innocents)
2. Look the kids are just going to have sex anyway if we teach them the right way to do it and how it can be controlled with contraceptives we can care for thier health and make sure that we don't have unwanted pregnancies and STD's. (lesser of two evils has increased promiscuity, destroyed families and brought about even more abortions)
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research can save poor innocent life when a bad disease threatens to take that life. We know that use of embryos is bad but we can do so much good. (lesser of two evils would further lessen mankind's respect for the life given by our creator)
Here is the common theme, when we stand up for evil (even the lesser evil) we work against God's will. Whenever the line between good and evil is blurred to us you can be certain that the devil is behind it. I pray that all of you have the fortitude to vote with the conscience God gave you at birth. Anything less and you will have to answer for it.
A vote for the lesser of two evils to me seems like a vote for the here and now, and not a vote for life everlasting. This may be a hard pill to swallow but I have been reminded by my Priest on several occasions that we are most easily influenced by evil when we make decisions based on how they impact us during our natural life.
ther is NO GOOD choice this election...to vote for a 'third party will be a vote for Obama ...God help us ! The Independant Candidate is in favor of Gay 'marriage'....we CAN in GOOD conscience vote for Mc Cain....he is NOT my dear me Cave man in favor of Abortion and there is hope he will be educated on the other issues......get your arrogant head out of wherever it is.....I am moving on this blog has become an ocasion of sin for me....you will be in my prayers.
Unfortunately, there are too many Catholics who believe that everything the USCCB states (officially?) is binding in obedience and perhaps faith. The reality is that the USCCB has NO CANONICAL authority over Catholics, although it has some canonical authority over vernacular translations of the liturgy, American adaptations to the GIRM, etc.--but must have Rome's OKEYDOKEY for even this.
A Catholic must obey--under the appropriate circumstances--his/her diocesan bishop. Even then the bishop must speak clearly for the Church and indicate overtly the requirement of obedience, etc.
Re Obama and McCain: Unfortunately IMHO there is not much difference between the two morally, with McCain perhaps only marginally less objectionable than Obama. The Caveship is right in my opinion. McCain holds to some things that are intrinsically evil that Catholics ought not to support. So what to do? I'm going to "throw my vote" away and vote Libertarian if the candidate is not morally objectionable. Meanwhile, trying to convince McCain to drop his morally objectionable positions is the only other alternative that I can see that the Caveship has already promoted and rightly so.
Sorry for the long post. My first shot. Will try better next time! :-)
Barbara,
I cannot think of a more simple way to put it... but you are a very foolish lady. I hate to tell you this, but when you froth the following "he is NOT my dear me Cave man in favor of Abortion", that just illustrates how ignorant you are.
ESCR IS abortion. An unborn life has been murdered... do you understand this painfully simple this is? Obviously not.
So stay away from this blog if you deem reading it places you in the near occasion of sin. Remind yourself of that when you pull the lever for a baby-killer.
BTW, the Five Non-Negotiables haven't been knocked down to four, have they? I guess only in your arrogant, petty mind they have.
I'm not an American, and hence don't actually need to vote for either whether they're evil or otherwise. However my understanding of your system is that the President only makes laws on his own via Executive Order, the vast majority of legislation, including ESCR would pass through Congress, the Senate and then have to be approved by the President. Now if Obama gets in, which he will if the vast majority of people who have voted Bush previously don't vote for McCain, you'll have the Senate, Congress and Presidency all in Democratic hands.
Whereas if you vote for McCain he will only have the Presidency with minority Republican representation in both Houses. Most Republican voters, Senators and Congressmen are pro life. McCain, were he to get in, would probably not be able to advance ESCR to an appreciable degree because he would be picking a fight not only with the party's rank and file but the very people whose support he needs to get elected. Indeed the pressure on him to use a veto on such legislation from people concerned about their own Districts would be fairly strong on its own.
Contrast that with the Obama situation where he already has the necessary support in both the Congress and Senate to get policies far more harmful through.
It is very easy to take the moral high ground if you're in a strongly Republican/Democrat seat because realistically your vote won't change anything if it goes to Barr or another 3rd party. But in marginals every vote can count and whether they go for Obama or McCain is going to have a long term effect, not least in terms of the balance of the Supreme Court. I know that I'd far rather have McCain making those appointments than Obama.
The problem I think you should be considering is what if your state is the last to declare and it holds the balance of power? What if your vote for Nader or Barr allowed Obama to win by one vote? Realistically the only chance America has for a ban on abortion now rests in the Supreme Court, if Obama gets in it will be decades before you have another chance to get it right. If McCain gets in there is at least a chance that they'll appoint Justices sympathetic to overturning it, and once they have accepted the premise that abortion is wrong it becomes that much more difficult for them to claim that embryo research is acceptable.
Now Cavey, don't be too quick with the club. Barbara is not the enemy. She just thinks that letting the lord barry obama win is not the way to go. I hear these fights all over talk radio. Rush says" McCain sucks but the lord obama is far worse" whereas Jason Lewis says "screw McCain if means selling my soul." I really don't know what to tell anyone. Far too many Saints were martyred by fellow "Christians".
SNHS,
Your posting was well thought through, concise and eloquent. But I believe the fatal flaw lies in too many "if's".
Unlike the predictions of the long-term results of, let's say, raise or lower taxes... being in favor of ESCR is an absolute.
As I said before, there are 5 non-negotiables for us Catholics, not 4.
I honestly do believe that we should be doing all in our power to get Sen. McCain to renounce his position on such. None of us should compromise our well formed CATHOLIC conscience on this.
But thanks for posting... it gave me food for thought.
Amen, Caveman. Until McCain changes his position on ESCR, I can't support him.
If you kill a man in self-defense, is it murder? No, of course not; and why not? Because the intent in your action was not to kill the man, but to preserve your own life or the life another.
Likewise, the Catholic Church teaches that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, a woman is justified in having the necessary medical procedure to save her life; a procedure which is, incidentally, an abortion. This is called the double-effect.
McCain's pro-embryonic stem cell research position is, in this situation, comparable to the double-effect of an abortion resultant from an ectopic pregnancy. The circumstances to which we are subject in this election are indeed most unfortunate.
It has been a frequent criticism of Obama, particularly from his own party, that he frequently votes "present" in whatever legislature he is a part of. It is, on his part, a clever strategy: it makes him appear more moderate than he is while effectively casting a "no" vote, for only a majority of "yes" votes, a majority of all who take part in the vote, even if they say "present," can pass a bill.
Voting for a 3rd party is voting "present." The intention in voting for John McCain, liberally inclined though he is, is not to support his ESCR position; in my case, it is a "no" vote to Barack Obama. McCain may not be a good guy, but at least he isn't the antichrist...
BAK,
Do you have a reference to an official Church teaching (not some non-binding pronouncement by the USCCB, et al.) allowing the termination of an eptopic pregnancy? I don't think you'll find one.
The example of "double-effect" just doesn't cut it. It's only so much wishful thinking in the case of those who are agreeable to "clean" abortion.
As Brother Paul Weberg, OSB, correctly stated;
One is never allowed to intentionally take the life of another innocent person. Evangelium Vitae says this specifically (EV 57). The principle of Double Effect works in the case of ectopic pregnanicies. The removal of the fallopian tube where the fetus has been implanted is the moral way of taking care of the mother, however, the fetus does die. In this act, the indirect dead of another (the fetus) is the secondary effect of the good/indifferent act of the removal of the infected fallopian tube. You may wish to update your website. Methotrexate cannot be used because it directly kills the fetus. The fact that the child will not survive is not relevant to the action. This is consequentialism, which is not supported by the Church. The end does not justify the means. Where we go is just as important as how we get there.
VCS,
No, there is not an official Church document outside what the USCCB has written that deals with the issue of ectopic pregnancies. However, your local Bishop, and vicariously the USCCB, is still an authority over you. Unless, of course, you are St. Thomas' "prudent man" who is justified in overthrowing legitimately established authority, whose power comes from God.
And yes, the principle of double-effect does cut it; even what you quoted says so: "The principle of Double Effect works in the case of ectopic pregnanicies." Brother Weberg is merely saying that the use of methotrexate is inadmissable in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, as it is a direct abortificent. Removal of the fallopian tube is morally permissable.
I am sure that this matter will be addressed by the Holy See sooner or later.
Regardless, a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for whoever ends up with the majority. It may seem that the 3rd party votes are irrelevant to the majority vote of the country, and it's true; they are seldom numerous enough to impact the whole of the country, but they are oftentimes significant enough to swing an individual state. With the way the electoral college works, that could easily be the deciding factor.
Believe me, I agree with you in principle. We ought not be limited to a two party system nor candidates who do not accurately represent our beliefs. But there is a notable difference between compromise and practical prudence. Much as I dislike McCain's stance on ESCR, I know that voting for a 3rd party candidate will not have a positive effect, and I know that, in the case that Barack Obama wins, voting for a 3rd party candidate helped him win.
So, I will vote for McCain and continue to work towards a better system.
No, there is not an official Church document outside what the USCCB has written that deals with the issue of ectopic pregnancies. Incorrect. There's 2,000 years of Church teaching on the topic, the most recent is Evangelium Vitae.
However, your local Bishop, and vicariously the USCCB, is still an authority over you. And when did they become a Magesterium unto themselves? What you state sounds positivly Episcopalian. Collegiality run amok?
And yes, the principle of double-effect does cut it; even what you quoted says so: "The principle of Double Effect works in the case of ectopic pregnanicies." You need to finish reading the quote -- "The fact that the child will not survive is not relevant to the action. This is consequentialism, which is not supported by the Church. The end does not justify the means." Even if there is a difference of opinion as to what the good Brother means, the end result is the death of an innocent human being, and The Church has never authorized that, regarless of the circumstances.
I am sure that this matter will be addressed by the Holy See sooner or later. As I've already stated, The Holy See has already spoken. For centuries upon centuries.
Believe me, I agree with you in principle. Then you should also agree with me morally. And if so, a vote for any candidtae who supports ESCR is unacceptable to us a morally bound Catholics.
We ought not be limited to a two party system nor candidates who do not accurately represent our beliefs. Agreed.
But there is a notable difference between compromise and practical prudence. Much as I dislike McCain's stance on ESCR, I know that voting for a 3rd party candidate will not have a positive effect, and I know that, in the case that Barack Obama wins, voting for a 3rd party candidate helped him win.
So, I will vote for McCain and continue to work towards a better system. I disagree. If we fail to stand by our principles and morals, why even be Catholics?
If you so desire to vote for Sen. McCain, that certainly is your choice. I just ask that you consider the following: are there 5 non-negotiables, or 4 with one that's essentially a shoulder shrug?
"Incorrect. There's 2,000 years of Church teaching on the topic, the most recent is Evangelium Vitae."
No document *specifically addresses* the issue of an ectopic pregnancy.
"And when did they become a Magesterium unto themselves? What you state sounds positivly Episcopalian. Collegiality run amok?"
They are not a Magisterium unto themselves; but they are a part of the Magisterium until they come into conflict with the Holy Father on matters of faith and/or morals, Scripture, or Tradition. What I am saying is far from Episcopalian; we cannot decide which authorities we like and which we do not. So long as the the lesser is not contradicting the greater, the lesser is still valid, particularly to us, the lesser-yet.
"You need to finish reading the quote -- 'The fact that the child will not survive is not relevant to the action. This is consequentialism, which is not supported by the Church. The end does not justify the means.' Even if there is a difference of opinion as to what the good Brother means, the end result is the death of an innocent human being, and The Church has never authorized that, regardless of the circumstances."
Now, I'm normally not one to go out of my way to insult someone's intelligence, but this is very much in my way, so I'll go ahead with it: you need to go back to high school, because your level of reading comprehension is evidently at that of an 8th grader.
When Br. Weberg says that "The fact that the child will not survive is not relevant to the action," he is saying that directly killing the child is sinful regardless of whether or not the child will survive. He is not saying that you cannot remove a fallopian tube where a fetus has been implanted; in fact, he says that it is the morally right thing to do (although calling it "moral" is Kantian terminology; I'll restrain myself here and not go off on a pedantic rant). The Church has always and always will forbid the intentional destruction of life, regardless of whether or not it is innocent. The key is intent; the intent in a just war or self-defense is not the killing of another's life, but the preservation of life. The intent in removing a fallopian tube (or any place other than a uterus where a fetus has become implanted) is in saving the life of the mother. The fetus will not survive in any case. The mother will survive with the surgery. Using methotrexate is not a surgery to save the mother's life, it is a chemical to kill the fetus. Therein lies the key difference; the intent in using methotrexate is, knowing exactly what it does, to kill the fetus - the inverted double-effect in that situation is that the mother is saved. Fallopian tube removal is reversed; the intent is to save the mother's life, and the fetus dies as an unintended double-effect.
I read the whole quote; you might want to do the same, and realize which parts mean what. I can find plenty of other sources, theologians, Catholic writers, Catholic doctors, to back up what I am saying on ectopic pregnancies. What you posted is an affirmation of what I am saying. The only sources you are likely to find on your side are hardcore Feeneyites. Good luck proving their validity...
"I disagree. If we fail to stand by our principles and morals, why even be Catholics? If you so desire to vote for Sen. McCain, that certainly is your choice. I just ask that you consider the following: are there 5 non-negotiables, or 4 with one that's essentially a shoulder shrug?"
I am standing by my morals and my principles. Barack Obama would bring ruin to this country, ruin to the Supreme Court, and consequently, ruin to the legal successes of the pro-life movement. I am doing all that is in my power to prevent that - which just so happens to be voting for John McCain. I hardly think the latter will find many judges which he can appoint to the SC who are pro-ESCR and also anti-abortion. They tend to go hand-in-hand.
I am not negotiating on ESCR. It's wrong, plain and simple. But just as anyone can administer Baptism, even a heretic or an atheist, in a moment of crisis, so too can I vote for John McCain in order to keep Barack Obama out of office.
Don't delude yourself. A third party candidate cannot win; and yes, I've heard the argument that "yeah, they won't if you keep voting Democrat or Republican!" Unfortunately, the problem is not with the voters, it's with the system as a whole. If you want to change things, try changing the system. In the mean time, don't throw away a vote to the benefit of Obama and the destruction of our country.
"Incorrect. There's 2,000 years of Church teaching on the topic, the most recent is Evangelium Vitae."
No document *specifically addresses* the issue of an ectopic pregnancy.
Does The Church HAVE to? 'No killing of innocent human beings' pretty much says it all. Anything else is just verbal gymnastics.
"And when did they become a Magesterium unto themselves? What you state sounds positivly Episcopalian. Collegiality run amok?"
They are not a Magisterium unto themselves; but they are a part of the Magisterium until they come into conflict with the Holy Father on matters of faith and/or morals, Scripture, or Tradition. What I am saying is far from Episcopalian; we cannot decide which authorities we like and which we do not. So long as the the lesser is not contradicting the greater, the lesser is still valid, particularly to us, the lesser-yet.
And there's the fatal flaw in your argument. They (in this case) go beyond the Magesterium. They are giving a window to whereas an innocent life can be put to death. We both know that incompatable with the 2,000 year old teachings of The Church.
"You need to finish reading the quote -- 'The fact that the child will not survive is not relevant to the action. This is consequentialism, which is not supported by the Church. The end does not justify the means.' Even if there is a difference of opinion as to what the good Brother means, the end result is the death of an innocent human being, and The Church has never authorized that, regardless of the circumstances."
Now, I'm normally not one to go out of my way to insult someone's intelligence, but this is very much in my way, so I'll go ahead with it: you need to go back to high school, because your level of reading comprehension is evidently at that of an 8th grader...
Yeah, I may not be all that smart, but I do understand the simplicity of 5 non-negotiables. Unlike you, I can count to five and I have the intelliegence enough to understand what all five mean.
When Br. Weberg says that....
Unfortunantly, you chose to leave our the part where I said "Even if there is a difference of opinion as to what the good Brother means, the end result is the death of an innocent human being, and The Church has never authorized that, regarless of the circumstances."
What was that about 8th Grade reading comprehension?
I can find plenty of other sources, theologians, Catholic writers, Catholic doctors, to back up what I am saying on ectopic pregnancies. What you posted is an affirmation of what I am saying.
I can find plenty of Catholic theologians and various other professionals who advocate womens ordination and various other heresy... what's your point?
The only sources you are likely to find on your side are hardcore Feeneyites. Good luck proving their validity... What in the world do Feenyites have to do with the 5 non-negotiables? And I guess the Pontifical Council on the Family is fun by the followers of Fr Feeney? Your grasping at straws now.
"I disagree. If we fail to stand by our principles and morals, why even be Catholics? If you so desire to vote for Sen. McCain, that certainly is your choice. I just ask that you consider the following: are there 5 non-negotiables, or 4 with one that's essentially a shoulder shrug?"
I am standing by my morals and my principles....
No need for me to post the rest of your morality two-step. You've convinced yourself that there really are just 4 non-negotiables coupled with a shoulder shrug.
I am not negotiating on ESCR. It's wrong, plain and simple.
But you're going to vote for the guy who supports it. Interesting.
Don't delude yourself. A third party candidate cannot win,,,
And when did I advocate a 3d Party Candidate? Careful, your 8th Grade reading comprehention is showing again.
In the mean time, don't throw away a vote to the benefit of Obama and the destruction of our country.
Allow me to remind you of 8th Grade Government class -- I have the right to vote for anyone I please. I also have the right not to vote for anyone I please. You see, as long as I have the right to vote, and exercise said right, it's simply impossible to "waste" that vote. I can vote for McCain, Obama, Mickey Mouse, the Man on the Moon... whoever I want. You see, it's MY vote.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that we have the right to only vote for the lesser of two evils. Only the truly weak-minded belive that is their only choice.
With all that said, I allowed your none too veiled swipe at me to be posted. Keep in mind this isn't a public forum, so to speak. If you want to disagree with me, I have no problem with that... hell, I WELCOME THAT!
I strongly suggest you keep your smart-ass comments to yourself. Namely, I most certainly could chose to not post your comments.
More importantly, your willingness to turn a blind eye and openly advocate the killing of innocent human beings based soley upon political expediency (and a heavy dose of Episcopalian collegiality) places you on extremly thin ice on this blog.
I suggest you tread lightly. This is your one warning. How and if you respond is up to you.
Having read these comments over the past few days, I must weigh in. First off, I support my buddies, Cavey & Former Altar Boy, to the hilt. They hold to the Faith.
I would urge all here to read Matt. 16:26 carefully, and then review your stance re: McCain
As to the sodomite loving USCCB: They have absolutely no hold over me. I answer to Holy Mother Church, not those imbeciles!
Lastly, as to a third party: Take a look at the Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.com). Interesting.
Semper Fi Cavey. Keep the Faith!
"Does The Church HAVE to? 'No killing of innocent human beings' pretty much says it all. Anything else is just verbal gymnastics."
I'm afraid then that what you call "verbal gymnastics" is the tradition of the Catholic Church. There are most certainly moral absolutes in this world; that is indisputable. But the moral quality of an action is, was, and always will be determined by one's intent, the object of one's intent, and the circumstances surrounding one's action.
There are a few actions which are always morally wrong, because regardless of one's intent, they are so grave that ignorance cannot be attributed, "such as blasphemy and perjury, murder" (NOT the "killing of an innocent being" - murder REQUIRES primary intent to kill, regardless of innocence; otherwise, by your definition, hunting would be wrong, so would a just war, as oftentimes individual innocents are killed in the process.) "and adultery." (CCC 1756)
The end does not justify the means. That is why methotrexate is not allowed; because although the intent is to save the woman, the mean is to kill the child. In the removal of a fallopian tube, the end is to save the woman, and the mean is a surgery which removes an improperly functioning part of her body. The intent is not to kill the child, by either ultimate end or proximate means. Consequently, the action is of good moral quality.
"And there's the fatal flaw in your argument. They (in this case) go beyond the Magesterium. They are giving a window to whereas an innocent life can be put to death. We both know that incompatable with the 2,000 year old teachings of The Church."
Not at all. In fact, it's very much in alignment with tradition. The principle of the double-effect is found in St. Thomas' Summa, II-II 64.7: "The act of self-dfense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."
The CCC also has things to say on this matter (bold emphasis mine):
(2269) "Unintentional killing is not morally imputable."
(2271) "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."
Similarly it is said of euthanasia that: (2277) "direct euthanasia.... is morally unacceptable."
Deliberately killing innocent life, as either a means or an end, i.e., murder, is morally unacceptable. Deliberately killing a sinner is also morally unacceptable, unless there is no other way to prevent his being harmful to the community (cf. STh II-II 64.2). However, incidentally killing innocent life as the double-effect of an action where both the end and the means intended are aimed at the saving of life is morally acceptable.
Innocent people die all the time. One is only morally culpable for that if they intended it, or directly caused it somehow. This is the teaching of the Church.
"I can find plenty of Catholic theologians and various other professionals who advocate womens ordination and various other heresy... what's your point?
What in the world do Feenyites have to do with the 5 non-negotiables? And I guess the Pontifical Council on the Family is fun by the followers of Fr Feeney? Your grasping at straws now."
These two are rather intimately linked; the sources I could cite defending my assertion on ectopic pregnancies are rational and reasonable. The sources you could find supporting ordination of women and various other heresies are irrational and unreasonable; as are the arguments of Fr. Feeney and his Feeneyites. My point is that I can find authorities teaching in a manner consistent with Church teaching (as I proved my position to be above) who assert the same position that I do, and you cannot.
"No need for me to post the rest of your morality two-step. You've convinced yourself that there really are just 4 non-negotiables coupled with a shoulder shrug."
Please refrain from strawman argumentation. Now, please explain to my poor addled brain what it means for something to be a "non-negotiable," without using circular definitions or explanations (e.g., "it's something you don't negotiate on!"). I am curious to see what your understanding is.
"More importantly, your willingness to turn a blind eye and openly advocate the killing of innocent human beings based soley upon political expediency (and a heavy dose of Episcopalian collegiality) places you on extremly thin ice on this blog."
Further strawman argumentation. I am neither turning a blind eye to it nor am I advocating it. As I said, I will fight John McCain on the issue of ESCR. My support for him is not absolute or unequivocal. My intention is not to vote for the "lesser of two evils." Indeed, voting for a 3rd party candidate (or not voting at all; essentially the same thing, since they both assist the majority vote [which, via your conservative position and absentation from voting for McCain, is by default, Barack Obama]), is a greater evil than voting for John McCain. Also, please describe how I am evincing "Episcopalian collegiality." That should be a good one.
"Allow me to remind you of 8th Grade Government class -- I have the right to vote for anyone I please. I also have the right not to vote for anyone I please. You see, as long as I have the right to vote, and exercise said right, it's simply impossible to 'waste' that vote. I can vote for McCain, Obama, Mickey Mouse, the Man on the Moon... whoever I want. You see, it's MY vote."
Now allow me to inform you of Political Theory 101. An automobile is intended to transport persons or things from one place to another; this is its purpose. Likewise, a vote is intended to elect a person or put into place a policy by majority rule. If an automobile does not fulfill its purpose but instead sits in a driveway, unattended, it is wasted; if it is not given enough gas through negligence on the part of the owner, it is likewise wasted. Similarly, if a vote is not used, or used on a candidate for whom there is no hope (an act of intellectual negligence), then it is also wasted. Waste is directly related to efficacy; if you affect nothing with your vote, then it is wasted.
I apologize for the insult.
Again, there are serious flaws (fatal?) in your arguments. Killing of innocent persons most certainly is against the 2,000 yr Magesterial Teachings of The Church. Anything other that is simply wishful thinking and (as I said earlier) verbal gymnastics. 2+2 will never equal 5. No matter how badly one wants it, or twists it, to be so.
Also, no matter how badly you may attempt to change the subject from ectopic pregnancies to ESCR, the fact of the matter is, no Catholic can support either. And any "Catholic" who does, certainly won't be given a voice on this blog.
Again, you parallels to the Feenyites and Woman's Ordination are feeble, at best. You allude that there may be a chance of legitimacy for the false "ordination of women". Am I misunderstanding you, or are you advocating such?
And know there is no strawman argument from me. It's really quite simple... you advocate someone who is in favor of killing innocent human beings. No amount of philosophy class or debating team strategies can get you out of that. It's simply the glaringly obvious truth.
As far as you advocating "Episcopalian collegiality", your attempt to state that they somehow have their "authority" over me... in all things... simply smacks of the Anglican/Episcopalian nonsense of local papacies, for lack of a better term. Like much of your argument overall, you can try to rationalize that in your mind all you like... but it still won't negate the truth. BTW, is comprehending what the word "non-negotiable" really all that hard? You haven't interned for Bp. Troutman, have you?
And your Political Theory 101 is just that... theory. The fact of the matter is, is that we all have a Constitutional Right to vote, or not vote. We have the Constitutional Right to vote for whoever we see fit, not according to the litmus test of a college student.
I'm very curious as to your defense of voting for someone who advocates ESCR, as well as so-called "womens ordination".
This is just far too ironic. Collegiality means cooperation amongst peers. That, uh, um... yeah... my asserting that the United States Bishops, in communion with the Holy See, have authority over you, is collegiality? Use a dictionary.
Local papacies? Excuse me, but what the hell is a hierarchy? Your local bishop is not an absolute authority, he is not a higher authority than the Pope, but he is still an authority, and one over you. Rejection of a Bishop who is in authority over you is rejection of the Pope. That is the nature of a hierarchy. That is the structure of the Church. Layman < Priest < Bishop < Pope.
I understand non-negotiable perfectly well. I happen to think that you, on the other hand, do not, and would like for you to prove to the contrary.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM (press CTRL+F and type in "ectopic" - it will bring you to the section).
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10335
I am not changing the topic; I am making an analogy.
"Am I misunderstanding you...?"
Yes. Badly. Ordination of women is impossible, illogical, and unreasonable. No sacrament occurs without proper matter and form; a woman is not proper matter; therefore they cannot be ordained. This is why I said in my post, which you clearly did not read thoroughly, that any attempt to ordain women is irrational an unreasonable (as are arguments against removal of the fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy).
"And know there is no strawman argument from me. It's really quite simple... you advocate someone who is in favor of killing innocent human beings. No amount of philosophy class or debating team strategies can get you out of that. It's simply the glaringly obvious truth."
I do not advocate John McCain. I am not a John McCain supporter. I am, however, anti-Obama, to the point that I will vote for McCain, while opposing him on the point of ESCR. This is no more of a compromise than it is advocacy, either, for there is no efficacious alternative.
"And your Political Theory 101 is just that... theory. The fact of the matter is, is that we all have a Constitutional Right to vote, or not vote. We have the Constitutional Right to vote for whoever we see fit, not according to the litmus test of a college student."
Alright, I'll simplify this for you: replace "Political Theory 101" with "Common Sense." You have a constitutional right. But just because the government says you can put your vote wherever you like, that doesn't morally excuse you shoving it up your own cornhole.
Indeed, listening to a college student will 9 times out of 10 be a mistake; unless, of course, he is simply repeating the teaching of the Church because he actually studies Her teachings in an orthodox Catholic school where the theology and philosophy professors have taken the mandatum.
Edjermickashun is overrated anyway, right?
"Cornhole"? Your little girl melt-down is a sight to behold! You played right into my hands. I knew that when you were backed into a corner and realized that your position is indefensable, you'd throw a hissy fit that a 11 year old girl would envy.
No... I take that back. That's an insult to 11 year old girls.
So none the less, it's obvious that you won't come out and give a straight answer to any of my painfully simple questions concerning ESCR. Well, none that you don't contradict yourself, and vainly attempt to legitimize.
Edjermickashun may not be overrated, but it certainly is wasted on you.
Anyhow, I grow tired and bored with you. I gave you the privilege of posting on this blog. And that privilege has now been revoked.
You can now toddle off to class or whereever it is that you go that tells you that 2+2=5. There's a future for you with RepubliCrats the likes of McCain.
Have a happy day.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home