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.
Funniest posting award
Post 144 by Jeff Chandler
"After having been raised by a woman, having lived with a woman for 32 years, and having raised three women, I can state with much authority and confidence that not only do all women feel the need to speak, they do indeed speak at every possible occasion."
EARNEST AWARD
AnAmericanMother
For posting, pinging new participants, multi c.c. responses, and the overall contribution of the historic significance of the Episcopalians to the question at hand.
i can change my mind if i want to AWARD
Frogjerk - Posting in response to Priests were able to marry at one time.
Post 166 "Prove it. This is a lie."
Post 169 "Peter was married and so were some of the early priests but so what."
BEST ADVICE AWARD
Wiley
"Please choose a different term for the kind of women’s vocation you are talking about."
difficult to follow ADVICE AWARD
Frog -
"Go back to around 300-400 AD and read some of the documents of the Church councils back then."
I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HAVE MORE TIME TO WRITE YOU A SHORTER POSTING BUT THIS WAY I CAN GO AROUND IN CIRCLES FOR A VERY LONG TIME and confuse the followers AWARD
Mad Dawg
THE PEACEMAKER AWARD
Post 159 by Dr. Sivana
BEST ANSWER AWARD
Post 53 by kstewskis
Try not to miss me too much.
"Listen with the ear of your heart." St. Benedict