On Catholics, abortion and Obama

This is another "straw man" question. The only question that needs answering: does one church or religion have any right to tell someone of another church or religion what to do? Of course the answer is: no. The Catholic church can tell its followers what and what not to do. But, telling other people: ie, imposing its views on others is what is at stake. "Informing" others of a particular perspective, view, bias is the exact thinking behind racist behaviors through out the ages and led to the aggrievous behavior when the Catholic Church turned a blind eye to the Holocaust during the 1930's and 1940's. The Catholic Church's "moral high ground" is predicated upon a selective political agenda, meant to enhance itself.

To permit or tacitly favor an intrinsic evil because of a prudential judgment seems pretty sketchy. " If you believe something like the Iraq war is evil (and it is in my estimation misbegotten at best) and give this prudential judgment more weigh than a stated matter of Catholic teaching, you are essentially saying that your prudential judgment is of more weight than the constant teaching the Church. We are essentially weighing a possible evil ( our prudential judgments are fallible) against an indisputable evil. It seems to me the more prudent thing would be to always be positioned against the incontrovertible evil. We really need more than a two party system. Neither party is particularly appealing from a true Catholic point of view.

Watch out folks! RiHo08 is bustin loose - with the truths! Ha ha! Your "only question that needs answering" comment is without a doubt the most highly evolved thinking I've ever been privileged to witness! Humanity will probably never fully grasp the depth of what you've just said here - we can only struggle and commit ourselves (for the remaining duration of our lives) to study and 'suppose' at what you truly meant.

Maybe you could give the readers a better understanding for what the term "straw man" actually refers to? Your personal definition would be nothing if not illuminating - I am sure. As for examples, you don't even need to search too hard to find samples - the several you provided in your comment were excellent!

We need more people like you - who truly know what they are talking about, and aren't afraid to tell the world!

But, I am forgetting my manners... please, let me offer you a refill on that Kool-aid I see you enjoy so much!

George Weigal ought to be collecting a payroll check from the Republican National Committee. His pathetic support for George Bush and the Iraq War is sickening. Just a flunky for Bush and his disasterous policies. A joke.

To Christian Meadows: I couldn't agree with you more that the two party system, by it's nature, is incapable of truly representing a true Catholic's interests.

To MickPD and RiHo08: You're kidding me right? Allow me to exploit both your ignorance and inherently flawed perception. RiHo08 posed the question "does one church or religion have any right to tell someone of another church or religion what to do?" Of course the answer is: YES.... Give me a break, like any organization with an agenda, i.e. Democrats, Republicans, Muslims, Jews, etc., it is not only a matter of right, it is the fundamental obligation of this type of organization that alleges "philosophical superiority" to spread and attempt to persuade others to acquiesce to their school of thought. If they ardently and vehemently believe what they are preaching/teaching it is necessary not only for the furthering of their cause but also to testify to that system of beliefs. Further, it is laudable that a group of people would vocalize their aversion to the decimation of innocent life. Whether you agree that what abortion is or not, that's certainly the way The Catholic Church and many others see it. Therefore judgement passed on Catholics and other Pro-Life advocates should certainly examine the intent, which is to save life not put someone out. If a person refuses to see the inherent goodness in that intent then I would imagine that they are either blatantly lying to themselves or they do not recognize life as sacred. Either way the person is flawed in their thinking.

Secondly, the concept that both life is sacred, and abortion is wrong is a concept entirely objective of religious affiliation. Governments, secular and theocratic throughout the world, with the exception of Communist doctrine, examine murder as a crime because of the moral implications involved. These laws are predicated on a fundamental belief that life is sacred. That ideal was born entirely objectively of a particular religious or political affiliation. That's, in most philosophy texts, exhumed from natural law, this archaic law that humanity may very well inherently possess. Because this ideal considers the sole purpose of the United States Government, which is to above all else protect the life of its citizens, then this is certainly a topic open for discussion. Just because the issue is being discussed by a religious entity it does not undermine the credibility of the argument. Look up what a Venn Diagram is and then once you learn how to use it, utilize one side for the U.S. government and the other side for the Catholic Church. You will realize that there are issues that the Church deals with subjectively, i.e. Church doctrine and dogma such as the Incarnation, and that the US government deals with objectively, i.e. infrastructure. There is however, in the middle part of the Venn diagram, a common ground between the two. Issues of life would be encompassed in that section.

Now that I have proven my point as to the right the Church has to speak on terms of life. Allow me to educate you as far as Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church during WWII was concerned. Your information couldn't be further from the truth. Most of that anti-catholic mantra was spewed from the mouths of communists who have long since been an enemy of the Church and John Cornwell who wrote his defamatory and since undermined book called "Hitler's Pope" (which I've read in entirety). This book has been undermined, and debunked as the blatantly false piece of literature that it is by Catholic and non-Catholic sources alike. I've done enough research on this to dismantle any of the incredulous accusations against Pius XII. The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said "Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests." The German priests and bishops were begging Pius to keep quiet because every time he overtly spoke against Hitler, Hiter had his men round up a group of Catholics and had them slaughtered. There were 3,000,000 Catholics slaughtered in Poland alone. Pope Pius XII was a diplomat and not a radical preacher. He knew that he first needed to preserve Vatican neutrality so that Vatican City could be a refuge for war victims. The Vatican does not have an army and could have not resisted a hostile take over had Hitler decided to do so.
I have reached the same conclusion as Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Jewish Polish lawyer who served as the Director on International Affairs Department for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. In "A Question of Judgment: Pius XII and the Jews", which he wrote in response to the publication of Roch Hochhuth's(A COMMUNIST) play, The Deputy, in 1963, Dr. Lichten called the criticism leveled at Pius XII after the play's publication "a stupefying paradox", because: "No one who reads the record of Pius XII's actions on behalf of Jews can subscribe to Hochhuth's accusation." Finally, if all of this information is not enough, the fact that the Chief Rabbi of Rome during the Holocaust converted to Catholicism disputes the Catholic Church's indifference, even more he took on Pope Pius XII's name before he became pope which was Eugenio Pacelli.

I am not offering this information in a condescending manner, I merely expect that people who are obviously reasonably bright consider what they say before they say it. Keep an open mind please and examine everything objectively and in the appropriate context. I was raised in a very anti-catholic household and used to be very anti-catholic myself but it was a result of this that I forced myself to remain open to other perspective and judge them on their merit and logical formation.

RiHo08 asserts that one religion cannot tell someone of another Church or religion what to do. In reality, the Catholic Church cannot *force* anyone to do anything. However, it can advocate, and as Mr. Reay pointed out, it has a moral obligation to do so if it really believes itself to be what it claims to be. Additionally, this matter is not one of "to each his own". There is no both/and here. Either there is a human life growing in the womb or there isn't. Either there is all the genetic "stuff" necessary for human life there or there isn't. Either that fetus has all the potential of every other human being, or he doesn't. If, indeed, that is a human life growing within its mother's womb, then it deserves all the legal protection of any other human being (go to http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm#galleries to see what that "lump of tissue" actually looks like).

One more point: Merely declaring oneself Catholic doesn't make it so. The Church has spoken forcefully, since at least the 2nd century of abortion as intrinsically evil. It is a matter of dogma, a fundamental teaching. If one doesn't agree with it, then he should find a new organization.