The Pope identified three principles in Catholic political action.
...a present-day Catholic citizen should never place issues of lesser importance at the same level of "the three non-negotiables":
- protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Debate about "capital punishment" and "hunger relief" is nice, and perhaps necessary. But they do not over-ride the three above. No way. No how.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Don't both of those fit into the first category?
Yes. But they are subordinate to the imperatives. The more-clearly phrased first item would include "innocent" as an adjective to "life."
Verily, we can all remember what the New Testament said about the importance of charter schools, squished in-between all that filler about the poor.
Ah. Sorry I got confused, I didn't realize we were allowed to insert words to change meanings.
I'm not an advocate of the DP and am comfortable with JPII's suggestion that affluent western societies should not rely on the DP any more.
Historically, the term "innocent" has been part of that 'life-dialog' for years and years.
I don't have access to the original document, either, so I can't check for editing.
Clearly, there's a more impelling case to be made for "innocent" life than that of some homicidal maniac.
John, I think the education thing is based on Genesis, not the NT.
You ARE aware that "public screwels" and the compulsory education laws in the USA were set up to reduce RC's influence on their children, no?
Make that "COMpelling" not "IMpelling."
Dad29...great post. Absolutely correct commentary from you at the bottom of it as well.
am pleased to receive you on the occasion of the Study Days on Europe, organized by your Parliamentary Group. The Roman Pontiffs have always devoted particular attention to this continent; today’s audience is a case in point, and it takes its place in the long series of meetings between my predecessors and political movements of Christian inspiration. would be the context.
A simple search of non-negotiable on the vatican's website finds other non-negotiables, including those having to do with migrants. The simple explanation is that non-negotiable is being used in two contexts. Many U.S. users are treating it as a candidate checklist. The Vatican uses it to mean those things that aren't subject to differing conclusions based on culture. The list of non-negotiables is fairly expansive, encompassing the litany in E.V. "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed." EV 70 is often cited in the voting documents, and that section claims that by mere virtue of an action being democratic, it is not necessarily right.
That said, one would have great difficulty justifying votes for democrats.
Sure, MZ. Show me. Think it would be easier to pick and choose through that list to make it fit with GOP policy and demonstrated character, or would it be easier to toss one or two items to make that list fit, say, the ACLU or Amnesty International charters?
(Must. Resist. DP. Joke.)
If it makes you feel better Mr. Foust, I have no plans to vote for a Republican either. It appears you think the DP is some sort of cincher. Like Dad29, I'm opposed to the DP. You and I may even agree on most of the issues. I'm still not going to vote for a proud proponent of abortion.
I don't know where you are voting, but I won't find any proud proponents of abortion on my ballot. There are candidates that believe in a woman's right to choose, but I don't see any proud proponents.
I don't know where you are voting, but I won't find any proud proponents of abortion on my ballot. There are candidates that believe in a woman's right to choose, but I don't see any proud proponents.
Post a Comment