On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Maura Domashinski <maura_domashinski@hotmail.com> wrote:
w.r.t.: http://www.google.com/search?q=voters+guide+for+serious+catholics
i was disappointed they didn't put "support capital punishment" in between say, abortion and euthanasia.
if you live in a state that has capital punishment, by inferrence, you support it. that's why i'm finally proud to be a nj citizen.
and as to "non-negotiable", all i can say is "who says?"
while it's most heartening people bring their religiously-born values to the public forum (see Stephen L Carter for all the wisdom you need on that point), it's quite another to say that "my list is non-negotiable".
one of the frustrating things about being a liberal is defending people's right to hold such views. certainly there are any number of people who will accept exactly that list because it's dressed in ecclesiastical garb; i grudgingly admit the view than you can bring a list of non-negotiable items to the public forum; i don't accept it on it's face. nor do i categorically endorse any of the five non-negotiable positions, though generally disagree with the stand against stem-cell research, and homosexual marriage (and generally agree with the others). if the catholic church doesn't want to sanctify same-sex marriage, it won't cause me to leave; if the state of nj were to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting it, i'd think about relocating.
on the subect of who says this with what authority, since that aspect is important to a catholic, you will note the lack of official seal (imprimatur) on the document. while there are lots of quotes from cathoic teaching, they are editor's quotes, and selected to make political, rather than faith-based points. which is why no teacher of the faith (a bishop) has put his (sadly, only male) signature on the document. there are a handful of bishops who do endorse these points, and may consider this as the one non-negotiable list. though i'd chuckle to think if you considered those bishops of like mind that could all agree (without negotiation) the contents of the non-negotiable list.
and why hasn't this happened? becuase a sufficient plurality of catholic bishops, already financially strapped, would be loath to see the likely challenge to their tax-exempt status should anyone claim promulgating this list crossed the line of endorsing specific candidates. while they've cleverly avoided specific candidates, their implicit (and selective) endorsement by withholding sacraments is about as close as they dare go.
love,
+=+-- dad
cc: newsdarktime.blogspot.com
cc: mcgowanspolitics@yahoogroups.com
cc: liberalslikecrhist@yahoogroups.com
cc: cta-nj
maura,Dad,
I am curious to read/hear your thoughts on this.
Maura
w.r.t.: http://www.google.com/search?q=voters+guide+for+serious+catholics
i was disappointed they didn't put "support capital punishment" in between say, abortion and euthanasia.
if you live in a state that has capital punishment, by inferrence, you support it. that's why i'm finally proud to be a nj citizen.
and as to "non-negotiable", all i can say is "who says?"
while it's most heartening people bring their religiously-born values to the public forum (see Stephen L Carter for all the wisdom you need on that point), it's quite another to say that "my list is non-negotiable".
one of the frustrating things about being a liberal is defending people's right to hold such views. certainly there are any number of people who will accept exactly that list because it's dressed in ecclesiastical garb; i grudgingly admit the view than you can bring a list of non-negotiable items to the public forum; i don't accept it on it's face. nor do i categorically endorse any of the five non-negotiable positions, though generally disagree with the stand against stem-cell research, and homosexual marriage (and generally agree with the others). if the catholic church doesn't want to sanctify same-sex marriage, it won't cause me to leave; if the state of nj were to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting it, i'd think about relocating.
on the subect of who says this with what authority, since that aspect is important to a catholic, you will note the lack of official seal (imprimatur) on the document. while there are lots of quotes from cathoic teaching, they are editor's quotes, and selected to make political, rather than faith-based points. which is why no teacher of the faith (a bishop) has put his (sadly, only male) signature on the document. there are a handful of bishops who do endorse these points, and may consider this as the one non-negotiable list. though i'd chuckle to think if you considered those bishops of like mind that could all agree (without negotiation) the contents of the non-negotiable list.
and why hasn't this happened? becuase a sufficient plurality of catholic bishops, already financially strapped, would be loath to see the likely challenge to their tax-exempt status should anyone claim promulgating this list crossed the line of endorsing specific candidates. while they've cleverly avoided specific candidates, their implicit (and selective) endorsement by withholding sacraments is about as close as they dare go.
love,
+=+-- dad
cc: newsdarktime.blogspot.com
cc: mcgowanspolitics@yahoogroups.com
cc: liberalslikecrhist@yahoogroups.com
cc: cta-nj
No comments:
Post a Comment