So an innocent unborn baby is equal to Ted Bundy with both of their lives deserving equal protection in your view? WOW!

Absolutely! Without trying to threadjack, there is in no way that we, as humans, can ultimately say who's life is more worthy in God's eyes. That isn't what you are trying to imply, is it? That you can make the ultimate decision of whether a person deserves life or death?

 

From my understanding, we Humans rely on God's grace just to obtain salvation. We are all sinners, and the only reason we aren't condemned to hell is because of God's mercy on us. If that is the case, then we all deserve the death penalty. But I don't believe that humans can accurately make the choice of who deserves the thumbs up or thumbs down. I'll leave it to the Father in heaven.

So an innocent unborn baby is equal to Ted Bundy with both of their lives deserving equal protection in your view? WOW!

 

No they are not the same, but a strict Pro-Life stance should define life from conception to natural death. That means pro life is anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-assisted suicide. I wonder what percentage of our politicians would fit that strict stance?

No they are not the same, but a strict Pro-Life stance should define life from conception to natural death. That means pro life is anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-assisted suicide. I wonder what percentage of our politicians would fit that strict stance?

Ron Paul is, sort of. He is against the federal death penalty.

 

I know of a certain Church that has this consistent stance.......

Ron Paul is, sort of. He is against the federal death penalty.

 

I know of a certain Church that has this consistent stance.......

 

I think there are several churches who believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to death, the Catholic church being one.

 

Either all human life is sacred or none of it is IMHO.

Ron Paul is, sort of. He is against the federal death penalty.

 

I know of a certain Church that has this consistent stance.......

 

Of course I am stirring the pot here...

 

 

We have seen examples of politicians being denied Communion(for some reason we only hear about it in Election years. I can't say it doesn't happen other times) The issue of why Communion is denied is Abortion. I have never heard of a politician(not saying it hasn't happend) being denied Communion for going against the Church stance on the Death Penalty or Assisted Suicide.

So an innocent unborn baby is equal to Ted Bundy with both of their lives deserving equal protection in your view? WOW!

 

I thought we had already hashed this out and you had stopped incorrectly calling yourself "pro-life?"

Of course I am stirring the pot here...

 

 

We have seen examples of politicians being denied Communion(for some reason we only hear about it in Election years. I can't say it doesn't happen other times) The issue of why Communion is denied is Abortion. I have never heard of a politician(not saying it hasn't happend) being denied Communion for going against the Church stance on the Death Penalty or Assisted Suicide.

I am not sure why certain Bishops decide to come out and specifically name certain politicians for certain offenses. Personally, I think it is unacceptable- matters like this should be private.

 

Also, the Catholic Church doesn't try to (and isn't going to) keep everyone who from receiving Communion who is in a state of mortal sin.

 

I guess certain Bishops try to take up a more hard-line stance on abortion (maybe because of how many more deaths are cause- similar to why abortion is a more important issue to me then the death penalty) but you can't accuse the Church of supporting the death penalty.

I am not sure why certain Bishops decide to come out and specifically name certain politicians for certain offenses. Personally, I think it is unacceptable- matters like this should be private.

 

Also, the Catholic Church doesn't try to (and isn't going to) keep everyone who from receiving Communion who is in a state of mortal sin.

 

I guess certain Bishops try to take up a more hard-line stance on abortion (maybe because of how many more deaths are cause- similar to why abortion is a more important issue to me then the death penalty) but you can't accuse the Church of supporting the death penalty.

 

The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times.

 

The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world.

 

This is from the US conference of Catholic Bishops statement on Catholics in Political Life. It seems to give individual Clergy members the option of denying Communion. I agree with you that the matter should be a private one. IMO, if politicians could be denied Communion for this, everyone should since we all have sinned and fallen short.

 

I bolded part of the statement, because when you look at it, in conjunction with the second paragraph, the bolded could become a political gray area. What about those who privately support abourtion on demand, and what about those who support it only in cases of rape or inscest? Alot could be read into that statement, right or wrong. And of course, the Catholic Church does not support the death penalty, and one could say that a bishop could just as well deny a politician that supports the death penalty Communion.

Der Fuhrer would have loved this Guy .

The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times.

 

The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world.

 

This is from the US conference of Catholic Bishops statement on Catholics in Political Life. It seems to give individual Clergy members the option of denying Communion. I agree with you that the matter should be a private one. IMO, if politicians could be denied Communion for this, everyone should since we all have sinned and fallen short.

 

I bolded part of the statement, because when you look at it, in conjunction with the second paragraph, the bolded could become a political gray area. What about those who privately support abourtion on demand, and what about those who support it only in cases of rape or inscest? Alot could be read into that statement, right or wrong. And of course, the Catholic Church does not support the death penalty, and one could say that a bishop could just as well deny a politician that supports the death penalty Communion.

Agreed, and I wouldn't have a problem with a priest denying the Holy Eucharist to a pro-death penalty politician, as long as it was done in a private manner.

No they are not the same, but a strict Pro-Life stance should define life from conception to natural death. That means pro life is anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-assisted suicide. I wonder what percentage of our politicians would fit that strict stance?

I'm pro-choice, for the death penalty and not anti-assisted suicide. Does that make me consistent?

I'm pro-choice, for the death penalty and not anti-assisted suicide. Does that make me consistent?

 

It makes us opposites. :lol: I guess that's a good thing for you.

Absolutely! Without trying to threadjack, there is in no way that we, as humans, can ultimately say who's life is more worthy in God's eyes. That isn't what you are trying to imply, is it? That you can make the ultimate decision of whether a person deserves life or death?

 

From my understanding, we Humans rely on God's grace just to obtain salvation. We are all sinners, and the only reason we aren't condemned to hell is because of God's mercy on us. If that is the case, then we all deserve the death penalty. But I don't believe that humans can accurately make the choice of who deserves the thumbs up or thumbs down. I'll leave it to the Father in heaven.

 

I think we are one of the few countries left in the world that still uses the death penalty. Not sure why...

So an innocent unborn baby is equal to Ted Bundy with both of their lives deserving equal protection in your view? WOW!

 

I know that this is a very deep emotional thing for you, LBBC. However, take as step back from that just a second and I think you will see my point.

 

I did not equate the two lives at all. Your posts have "hinted to" a perceived hypocrisy of someone declaring themselves pro-choice due to a woman having the right to do what she wants with her own body and then being against legalized prostitution. I was just mentioning that someone that says that they are pro-life in being against ANY abortion would also be hypocritcal in supporting the death penalty. You can't be pro-LIFE and support the DEATH penalty. I guess you could be anti-abortion and support the death penalty though.

I thought we had already hashed this out and you had stopped incorrectly calling yourself "pro-life?"

 

Nope said you had given me things to think of but no one has yet addressed that an adult makes a decision to break a law KNOWING that the consequence is death. THEY made the choice.

 

That is far different than an unborn baby's life being taken.