Posted on 09/18/2004 8:14:25 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
DENVER (CNS) -- German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger should resign as head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and be replaced by a "feminist woman," said an organization representing 500 U.S. women religious. The National Coalition of American Nuns added that the Vatican should grant greater decision-making power to women, including participation in the election of popes. The positions were taken in a resolution passed by the coalition's board of directors at its Aug. 18-21 meeting in Denver. The coalition is known by its initials, NCAN. It was founded in 1969 and specializes in human rights and social justice issues. In another resolution the board said the church should allow same-sex marriages. The resolution also opposed federal or state laws that would prohibit gay or lesbian unions.
Ping
Wouldn't make any difference. Both advocate voting for pro-abortionists.
This is where I long for the good old days, when they'd all be excommunicated.
I've voted for a pro-abortion candidate before--but only because he was running against Hillary Clinton. I do not really regret it that much. Should I?
Yes you should. You essentilally helped send an innocent person to their death.
I had a choice between two pro-abortion candidates. I voted for the one who was slightly less pro-abortion, and he lost.
I don't think I sent anyone to their death.
How many active nuns are there in the US these days?
You are confusing the issue. A vote, at most, places a person in office, where they will do various things, both good and evil (must we elect only impeccable legislators?). It should be obvious that if the evil is an unintended consequence of the person's election, the voter is not responsible for it. The intended result of the vote is to place the person in office so that he may best "further the common good" (GS 75).
I'm not confusing anything. It's a mortal sin to knowingly vote for a pro-abort.
Okay, Ghost, suppose candidates A and B both support abortion, but candidate A is strongly for euthenasia of the elderly and handicapped, and candidate B is strongly against it?
Which only goes to show how low we're forced to go.
Having to decide which pro-abortion candidate to choose is clear evidence of major modern moral decay - what some call "the springtime of Vatican 2".
A lot of people voted for Swartzenegger. I'm not sure it was a mortal sin to do so. I think it would be to support any of his immoral policies, when he undertakes such.
People can change, as well. President Bush has been surprizingly orthodox on 'life issues'. Will he remain so after people re-elect him as a lame duck President?
Isn't that mutually exclusive?
Can we get rid of these nuns. Of course, we really don't have to do anything, in twenty years, their orders will cease to exist because they garner no vocations.
Unless there is "proportionate reason." I would argue that when faced with two pro-abortion senate candidates, you vote for the one who will push abortion the least (ie the one who would at least limit it (parental notification, partial birth abortion)). When faced with a pro-life and a pro-abortion choice, then Ratzinger and Burke have said there is no proportionate reason that would allow for voting for the pro-abortion candidate, but if there was, then you could. I hope that makes it a little clearer what they said.
Oy vey. These nuns are serious? Whatever happened to serving God? They sound like a PAC.
Vote for Candidate C.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.