This question is easily solved: If the bishops are against the bill, they are right. If the bishops support the bill, they are wrong and acting against tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church. If they support the bill, they are modernists and could get excommunicated.
Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication. So says the catechism.You are saying the bishops should be deposed because they supported the Jobs bill?
But I don't look at our participation in this "risk pool" as subsidizing the abortions or gay partner medical expenses of other employees./QUOTE] It's a sin to force people to pay for something they do not want with the money that they have been blessed with by God, especialy when it's for others. It is the sin called stealing.
Socialism and catholicism are not compatible.
Any Catholic who obstinately denies that abortion is always gravely immoral, commits the sin of heresy and incurs an automatic sentence of excommunication. So says the catechism.
Are you saying that because the bishops supported the Jobs bill they are now excommunicate and we are released from our obligations to them?
You are aware his understanding of canon law in this case is imperfect at best. Automatic excommunication under canon 1398 without applying canon 1323 or 1321. He is also not taking into account the factors of formal, informal and remote material cooperation.
Yes, I appreciate that, David. I was trying to understand his thinking. I had concluded his thinking was in error.
Figured you had, I wanted a factual post up for the lurkers who don't post but read and go away thinking something is right. The entire discussion of can someone be in remote material cooperation with evil and what that entails is fascinating in moral theology, but pretty thick.
But David, do you believe that if the federal government gives, in addition to extended unemployment benefits, a cash stipend representing 65% of a COBRA payment, that that is materially cooperating in abortion?
Even remotely?
This is different from the health care bill where members of congress said: "We want this to cover abortion" like waxman (who had a huge hand in writing it) said directly to stupak. So in one case a primary writer said the intention was to further abortion where it would would not be available otherwise.
Chairman Waxman also said he wanted single payer and a public option. That is hardly proof those things are law now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?