View Single Post
Old 12-03-2008, 12:32 AM   #16
Samuel Dravis
@Samuel Dravis
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,980
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Mr. SD,

The problem with his argument is that he's applying it to one specific issue (abortion). You are correct that he is being completely consistent within the context of the issue. However he is not being consistent at all within the context of the larger argument he is using to defend his stance on the issue.

For example, could this same letter have been written to those that voted for the Pro-War candidate, John McCain? I would argue that it could have. So is he advocating that his parishioners options were either vote for McCain or not vote at all? If so, then he is seriously out of bounds (monkeying with the separation between church and state), not to mention a hypocrite.
Sure, I can agree with that. I've thought along similar lines when this has come up in previous elections.

Whether I should be surprised by his stance or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not his actions were appropriate.
And I think it's pretty clear they were not. The priest even blatantly violated his church's own guidelines concerning involvement in the election - namely, he specifically mentioned Obama in the letter. The point of my original post was merely to say that 1) It's unsurprising that something like this would happen, and 2) his position is not particularly extraordinary as Catholics go, as it is has been church doctrine for quite a long time, even before Humanae Vitae was written (this in response to the seemingly amazed comments in this thread that someone could say such a thing).

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Yes, Samuel, I could see how this isn't surprising. However, on the other hand, he's really not being practical. He also isn't logically correct, nor is he appropriate in dictating to his congregation that they're sinners for voting for Obama.

Are you defending him?
No, I don't have any interest in defending him. I've already agreed he was in the wrong to write what he did, and arguing articles of faith is not something I'm very good at.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: