[sinkspur]

But they are obliged, as citizens, to follow the laws of the land (per what the Catechism states), and that means the current laws that are on the books.

A law that interferes with the ability of ministers to actually minister is a law that ought to be ignored.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that right away and voted, unanimously, to eliminate the provision.

[BlackElk]

A law that interferes with the ability of ministers (or priests or rabbis or presbyters or whatever) to actually minister flatly violates the First Amendment Right to Worship AND (less clearly but consistent with standard misinterpretation by SCOTUS) the First Amendment prohibition of Congressional action respecting "an establishment of religion" would be no law whatever Congress might have presumed if Congress (at least the Senate Judiciary Committee) had forgotten the oath taken by each member to uphold the US constitution.

Let us take the arguments on their merits. I do not always agree with Sinkspur on matters Catholic but the mere fact that Sinkspur advances an argument does not automatically make the argument wrong. He is often right on matters such as this. Sometimes he does not make the argument in the terms that others might employ. We diminish ourselves if we let personal feelings get in the way of truth.

Spiro Agnew pled guilty to income tax evasion and (I believe) to taking bag money from Maryland contractors when he was governor there. Nevertheless, his press and media critics and other political liberals WERE "nattering nabobs of negativism." His imperfections were not relevant to his political campaigns. So and so eats pomegranates and therefore should be denied a hunting license??????

Woman/Man::Fish/Bicycle (Feminazis wrong again!). None of us are feminazis but that argument on its own merits is irrational and wrong.