What about the innocent Iraqi's who lost hands, ears, and other appendages and were killed by bullets and bombs at the hands of American forces?

Most of the Iraqi casualties were inflicted by fellow Iraqi insurgents or foreign terrorists. The truth is that innocent Iraqi civilians are safer today but opponents of the war seem eager to overlook that fact.

I love people who tell it like it is.....and I am not Catholic.

Do you believe that was intentional? I'll answer for you, no you didn't, but it's a sad reality of any war.

 

But does that justify it? Does it make it okay that we forget about it and consider it "collateral damage"?

 

If some other country attacked the U.S. and said that they didn't mean to kill innocent Americans, that they only wanted to take out our government and our military, would we be okay with that?

Most of the Iraqi casualties were inflicted by fellow Iraqi insurgents or foreign terrorists. The truth is that innocent Iraqi civilians are safer today but opponents of the war seem eager to overlook that fact.

 

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

 

Because I have read reports that hospitals are worse, and that diseases that were once under control in Iraq, are again out of control.

But does that justify it? Does it make it okay that we forget about it and consider it "collateral damage"?

 

If some other country attacked the U.S. and said that they didn't mean to kill innocent Americans, that they only wanted to take out our government and our military, would we be okay with that?

No, it doesn't, but when you're in this type of a war, it's impossible to avoid. How many innocent victims do you think there were in WWI, or WWII? No different, except this isn't a "popular" war.

No, it doesn't, but when you're in this type of a war, it's impossible to avoid. How many innocent victims do you think there were in WWI, or WWII? No different, except this isn't a "popular" war.

 

I'll end my discussion on this here, because I hi-jacked this thread and diverted from the original topic.

 

I apologize for doing that.

I'll end my discussion on this here, because I hi-jacked this thread and diverted from the original topic.

 

I apologize for doing that.

No problem, I understand your feelings. :thumb:

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

 

Because I have read reports that hospitals are worse, and that diseases that were once under control in Iraq, are again out of control.

Do you have any proof to back that up? Something of recent vintage?

Let the pastor do what he wants to do. But if it were my church, I would probably be looking elsewhere.

I agree with the Priest's stance 100%. I wish priests took stances like this more often. I am not expert on the various intrinsic qualities that make a sin mortal or venial, but I wish that the clergy would take more hard-line stances on when and when not to receive. The Body of Christ is a gift that is often taken for granted, even by Catholics.

I agree with the Priest's stance 100%. I wish priests took stances like this more often. I am not expert on the various intrinsic qualities that make a sin mortal or venial, but I wish that the clergy would take more hard-line stances on when and when not to receive. The Body of Christ is a gift that is often taken for granted, even by Catholics.

 

Amen.

This is just one whack job of a Priest. Let them all follow his lead and see how many churches stay open.

Yes, that's a good point. The Catholic Church should sacrifice what they find to be True for the sake of congregation numbers.

 

I, for one, am happy that my Church stays true to Truth despite public opinion. For example, when Humanae Vitae was released, prophetically stating that birth control would lead to more abortion, divorce, and degradation of human life. People laughed and wondered how keeping births from happening would result in more abortion?

 

It would have been so much better if the Catholic Church had simply adapted their standpoint to adjust to what the secular world believes is best.

Yes, that's a good point. The Catholic Church should sacrifice what they find to be True for the sake of congregation numbers.

 

I, for one, am happy that my Church stays true to Truth despite public opinion. For example, when Humanae Vitae was released, prophetically stating that birth control would lead to more abortion, divorce, and degradation of human life. People laughed and wondered how keeping births from happening would result in more abortion?

 

It would have been so much better if the Catholic Church had simply adapted their standpoint to adjust to what the secular world believes is best.

 

I second the comments of cch5432. Absolutes are absolutes. If you prefer a church that, like too many of our mainline groups, changes its beliefs to suit the times (and to bring in the crowds), the Catholic Church isn't for you. Of course, if you do prefer the "Church of What's Happening Now", you would be just as well off going to a local sports bar instead.

 

As for me, I'll stay where I am.

This is just one whack job of a Priest. Let them all follow his lead and see how many churches stay open.

 

Maybe they could all go follow a "normal" pastor, like say Rev. Wright in Chicago??

I am not questioning the Church's stance on abortion, but in essence, Catholics should not have voted in this election. You can stretch it all you want, but what is going on in IRAQ is not a "just war" and there is no way the writings of Augustine could be construed to suggest that it is, heck, it is not even a WAR. Given that there is no way a Catholic in good conscience could vote for McCain.

 

Being pro-choice does not by definition lead to anyone getting an abortion.

 

Sending troops to battle, by definition leads to death.

First of all, let me say that I agree with your premise (sort of). I don't blame the Church for denying communion to abortion supporters. However, I don't necessarily agree with the lack of outcry from the Church about the war in Iraq (even though the Pope spoke against it). I assume that it comes down to proportionality- the lives taken in Iraq is minuscule to those through abortion. Therefore, the proportionality of the outcry follows.

 

I do not follow your logic on the second part. Being pro-choice does not lead to death because you are not physically performing and/or receiving an abortion, but, apparently, voting in favor of a war is the same as killing someone. To me, neither leads directly to death.

 

The way I look at it, deaths in Iraq, as unbearably unfortunate as they are, may have some greater goal in Iraq- stability in the Middle East, it prevented the genocide that Saddam initiated, etc. (and FWIW, I am not as informed on the war in Iraq as many others are). However, I don't see the greater good in abortion.