Should the Church be silent ?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Well then by your own standards killing left-handed-Twinkie-eaters would be a matter of personal belief. So if you believe that's OK, then who am I to object.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Idiot.

Why? It's a perfectly valid objection. Unless you recognise certain limitations to the right to freedom of religion. If so, please clarify what those are.[/b]

The freedom of religion ends at the same point as the freedom to swing your arms: at the other guys nose or in this case, the other guy's womb. Coletti's post is idiotic and he knows it; the issue of whether a fetus is a human being entitled to the natural and fundamental rights persons are is the debate; his example was soooooooo disingenous it lapsed into foolishness.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The freedom of religion ends at the same point as the freedom to swing your arms: at the other guys nose or in this case, the other guy's womb. Coletti's post is idiotic and he knows it; the issue of whether a fetus is a human ...[text shortened]... his example was soooooooo disingenous it lapsed into foolishness.

Or the end of the nose of the child in the other guy's womb.

Yes, the rights of the fetus is the question.

EDIT: Guy's womb?! 😵

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Or the end of the nose of the child in the other guy's womb.

Yes, the rights of the fetus is the question.

EDIT: Guy's womb?! 😵

Intentional irony.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's the very first sentence of CCC 2267:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

I must have a different or older version. Thank you for the link.

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

I do not see how the death penalty can be the 'only practicable way to defend the lives of
human beings...' in our modern society. I mean, you raise the issue of escape or causing
harm to other inmates. There are practicable (and practical) ways to prevent this.

That might very well be true - I do not know enough about the US penal system to make a judgment. My point simply is this - a politician does not violate Church teaching merely by holding that the State has the right to recourse to the death penalty.

I'm still not convinced, seeing as there are 'practicable' ways of incarcerating people;
and, given the injustices in the system, it would seem to me that the specific way in
which the death penalty is applied is in direct violation with Church teaching and, as
such, should not be supported; that is, the punishments that are carried out are both
avoidable and do not conform to the high standards demanded by the Church and, as
such, are in contradiction with Church teaching.

We can agree to disagree on this. I understand that there is no intrinisic doctrinal
violation for supporting the death penalty now, however, this particular manifestation
of it, I feel, is not in the spirit of the death penalty endorsed by the Church and a
politician who supports it in its present form is in doctrinal violation of Church
teaching.

See my response to no1 [re: the (Un?)Just War]

Ok: granted, when the Pope condemned the war as unjust, he did not do so infallibly.
However, shouldn't this get strong consideration? Shouldn't the politicians defer to
the 'ordinary' declarations of the Pope when making a decision of such magnititude (i.e.,
whether or not to vote to support a potentially unjust war)? Plus, further evidence
has not supported any claim that this war did or does meet the criteria for being just.

This war has claimed 100k lives; when does the 'unjustness' of the war take effect?
Only when the Magisterium denounces it?

Plus, as I've said elsewhere, it is not the case that politicians who do not spend every minute of theirs in Congress/Parliament trying to create legislation that will outlaw contraception and divorce automatically support it (tacitly or otherwise).

But certainly they would be obligated to occasionally introduce it, right? Say, once a year?
Once a term?

Have any of the RC politicians where you live ever introduced legislation
against remarrying after divorce? If they haven't, have they ever been refused
Holy Eucharist?

How about contraception? Have they ever tried to pass a law which banned
wholesale all artificial contraception? If they haven't, do they receive Communion, too?

Do you ever vote for the reelection these politicians who fail to safeguard the Doctrines
of the Church? If you do, aren't you commiserating with those who fail to protect the
Faith?

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Or the end of the nose of the child in the other guy's womb.

Yes, the rights of the fetus is the question.

EDIT: Guy's womb?! 😵

your nose has no business being put in the other guys womb

Originally posted by frogstomp
your nose has no business being put in the other guys womb

Wait til you see the aftermath of a victory by the fundamentlists that dont share the Pope's view of who represents the holy spirit.
Keep right on working to destroy religious freedom and you will find your own oppression is on the way and the people that protected religious freedom will be nowhere to be found, for you will have helped destroy them.
Scoff if you like, then look up the history of religious intolerance in the U.S.