Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (51630)	6/26/2004 7:41:57 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793677

That article was a great find, Gina. Thanks for posting it. I seems that the position of at least one bishop is quite clear. I think he's right about this: <<Regarding the invisible dimension of communion, he reminds us of what we have been taught or should have been taught from our first preparation for holy Communion, namely that it is a sacrilege to receive the sacrament when one is not in the state of grace. One who publicly condones and promotes objectively grave sin also lacks the proper disposition for the worthy reception of holy Communion.>> As long as the church is clear that any unforgiven failure to stop procured abortions obviates the state of grace, then the politician should not take communion. I think he's mistaken about one thing, though. <<The failure to protect the life of the unborn, a violation of the moral law, violates the common good and betrays the trust given to elected officials.>> What violates the trust given to elected officials is to act inconsistent with their campaign promises or to fail to uphold the law, not the teachings of his religion. The bishop is very confused about this. At the same time, we made it clear that “no appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible” (No. 32; see Evangelium Vitae, Nos. 73-4). I have a problem with this, too. Bishop Burke is quite clear and eloquent in his argument labeling procuring an abortion and the failure to stop abortions "gravely sinful acts." What he conveniently ignores is the difference between crime and sin. I think the position he takes is appropriate. I just have a problem with the logic he uses to rationalize the difficult position it puts potential public office holders in. He's basically saying that one must be unquestionably pro-life to hold public office if one is a Catholic. So far so good. Then he goes on to say: <<... it is “a form of intolerant secularism” that disqualifies Christians from political life because of their duty to act according to their conscience (No. 6d).>> That's nonsense. People who run on pro-life platforms or on any platform will either be elected or not elected based on that platform. No "secularism," intolerant or otherwise, "disqualifies" them. The bishop is looking for a bogeyman rather than taking responsibility for his position, which is not inappropriate but which puts Catholic politicians in a very difficult position and at a disadvantage in many jurisdictions.