What a convoluted discussion. I’m saying, using YOUR logic, that Catholics all over America, 2 months ago, voted for a pro choice candidate (who also voted in favor of partial birth abortion) for their own reasons (eye of the beholder) and the alternative was no where near the absurd examples you gave and this is not an “alternative universe”. This is NOW.
They apply your logic and you seem more concerned with giving ridiculous examples to support your blather rather than acknowledging it is already happening. And, it happened all over the U.S. given the turnover of congress. The position you promote that voting behavior is acceptable because they chose their big “carefully derived opinions” gives passive consent to the pro choice platform. Catholic vote has not been unified on many issues, some, like pro life, is a no brainer. Or should be. But it isn’t. So, I don’t give time to hypothetical b.s. when we can clearly see Catholics all over are betraying the sacred position of life for no good reason.
As for blessing gays, I said I oppose hatred. I do NOT support calling gay couples forward and blessing their coupleness and said the article was poorly written and lacked information about what happened. If the vatican removes him, I will know the priest violated his vows and I do not support that and said so.
From my first comment on your bishop's cryptic letter -- or your cryptic recollection of your bishop's letter, I was speaking abstractly, as was evident to the other readers. You did not present the problem as necessarily pertaining to Obama. My answer did not pertain to Obama. The language that you presented was general. I responded considering the general case, NOT this case.
You seem to insist that since there is disagreement about matters of prudential judgment, prudential judgment ought not to be appealed to. You say "eye of the beholder" as though matters of prudence were like matters of taste. But they aren't. They are matters of reason; they have right answers and wrong answers. It's not the fault of the principle that many RC dunderheads voted for Obama. It's that either they didn't use the principle or they used it wrongly. Some of them may have applied my logic, but they didn't apply reason to the evaluation of the circumstances, or at least not successfully.
So, Now I'm getting that you responded against the people who had read the article and knew what was going on by defending what they were not attacking, and now you're doing the same thing to me. You present a, (incomprehensible) generality about voting for a not this particular pro-abortion candidate. I respond that in some cases it would be licit.
Then not troubling to distinguish between what I said or to note what YOU in fact said, you begin to suggest that I voted for Obama and am trying to get cover for doing so. THEN you act like prudence was in the eye of the beholder and suggest that my line of thought is essentially liberal.
It's not, it's orthodox.
you seem more concerned with giving ridiculous examples to support your blather rather than acknowledging it is already happening.
and
So, I don’t give time to hypothetical b.s. when we can clearly see Catholics all over are betraying the sacred position of life for no good reason.
Ah, you don't practice using reason. That explains a lot. I say again, you quoted an incomprehensibly expressed generality (which maybe you didn't quite understand) but meant a specific. It might have helped if you had said so. My mind-reading skills don't work well through the net and usually I have to rely on the words I read.
I oppose hatred
Oh wow. That's great. Too bad nobody but you was talking about hatred.