Cows are getting bird flu.
Link: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/31/1241897770/bird-flu-dairy-cows-idaho-kansas-texas-michigan-new-mexico
(no message)
Who picks and chooses what he feels like
debunks that devout nonsense
many of the faithful follow that one?
Biden actively works against the Church, unlike private cafeteria Catholics.
(no message)
Isn’t that the old canard that the prods would always use against electing a Catholic? That he will take his orders from the Church?
Take IVF. Church doctrine is adamantly opposed. Should Biden use that to govern his position on it?
Same on social justice issues and Capital Punishment.
Pope Frankie also seems like an open borders guy to me. Aren’t we supposed to treat the immigrant by the Golden Rule? Even if it is obviously not in the national interest to do that, and the person is here illegally.
Let’s face it we all live in the Church cafeteria. Because we all live in the world. The Church though isn’t of the world and neither is much of its doctrine.
JFK: I think the objection by protestants to electing a Catholic is that he might follow what the Pope says to do (an unelected control of our government), not that he might follow his conscience.
Life issues (including IVF): Really the role of state legislatures, so not an issue for Biden. Granted, the president apparently has the power to decide how some pro-abortion money is spent, and every GOP president has stopped it, and every Dem president has spent it to support abortions both in the United States and abroad (the latter being especially odd). A Catholic President should not be advocating for, and paying for, abortions.
Social justice is not doctrine. At best, it is an interpretation, and it is quite faulty. Jesus never called for any government to do anything. He did call for individual charity often, though...and his goal was conversion of the souls of both charitable giver and charity receiver. Those who support social justice are effectively using the power of the state to relieve themselves from the call to individual charity, and are, whether knowingly or not, diminishing the conversion effect of charity.
Capital punishment: Personally, I would commute most sentences to life. A Catholic probably should do that. But, capital punishment is not outright prohibited by doctrine (even though Francis might what it to be so). So, I don't think a Catholic must do that as governor.
Francis probably is an open borders guy. And, he calls for cease fires all the time in every conflict. That's one of his roles as Pope, and I have no problem with him calling for restraint, and peace. I have no problem with Catholics helping immigrants once they are in the country (indeed, I think all government aid for illegal immigrants should be cut off, and the Church should fill that role). But, Church Doctrine (e.g., the Catechism) does afford national leaders roles in establishing order, and even in waging war. So, a pope calling for peace does not mean that a just war cannot be waged in line with Catholic doctrine. A pope wishing for open borders doesn't mean a lawless approach which encourages trafficking in children.
The issue isn't whether people pick and choose what doctrine they like. People do that. The issue is whether Biden is opposing Church doctrine, which he does. He could support life issues, or he could remain neutral, but he actively fights against life, and against Church Doctrine.
consistent with Church doctrine? You know he/she couldn’t. Or the morning after pill. Or abortions for rape, incest or a non viable fetus that is going to miscarry? Or even birth control; for that matter.
I actually wrestle with this myself. I have this suspicion that if we (pro-lifers) could accept a compromise position, then we could save more lives than pushing for a total ban...because we will lose on a total ban. That makes this a difficult issue.
The bottom line is that we will soon be back to abortions all the way through partial birth, because the Left will get ballot initiatives passed. They won't offer the people a compromise. They will offer them their most extreme position. That is sad.
But, again, as to Biden, he can sign a bill like that and stay Catholic I think, if he also says no federal dollars within his total discretion (which he has) will be used to promote abortion.
contrary to Catholic teaching on an issue of huge importance. Hence my point, we are all cafeteria to some extent. The question is just how much and on what issues.
Regardless, none of this applies to Biden, because he is anti-Catholic.
just not as much. Does that fetus have a beating heart at 17 weeks? You can't reconcile it with Catholic doctrine. Is still a viable compromise? I would say yes. The issue you are raising is whether it’s better to contravene doctrine for a good versus bad motive and we agree. But you are still contravening it and that can be a slippery slope. I will repeat again, most of us are cafeteria for good, bad, or indifferent motives.
Link: https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/17-weeks-pregnant
pregnancies due to rape, incest or coercion (including marital situations). As for late term abortions, they are rare and typically medically justified.
Link: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/abortions-later-in-pregnancy-in-a-post-dobbs-era/
discussions.
any sense, so your decision is understandable. Ned also comes across as being 'abortion centric', and I've seen him post several times about "compromise" on the issue...but when it comes down to brass tacks, he would always cut and run back when we conversed...
I'm guessing he can't come up with a compromise that doesn't involve government intrusion into the intimate lives of all women and questioning their decisions...all within a very short time frame...hope you can pry some details out of him...without any deflections ;-).
to see the need for compromise on the issue. As with most things on the fruited plain these days, the ultras on both sides are both nuts and skewer the debate.
(no message)