• gilcan

    Isn’t it clear that religion is not the thrust of either man’s work life? In both cases, the work life is politics, and they happen to be Catholic. Being altar boys is only a formality. They attend church. But if we look carefully at all churchgoers, Catholic and others, almost all build different kinds of walls between church and state.

    That division only appears non-existent for evangelicals who consider the bible as the main or only “textbook” they’ve ever opened. Michelle Bachmann is a case in point, and like so many others of her kind, her Bob Jones University background aside, it is impossible to be sure if their seeming religious affiliation and fervor isn’t a disguise for political self-promotion.

    One would need a living room familiarity with any person to obtain a genuine estimate of the influence and practice of their claimed religious beliefs in their daily lives, including their work life. A particular church affiliation never ensures anyone’s acceptance of all that church’s tenets or practices them in their daily lives in any “faithful” way. The study of religion is very shallow for most people and it’s practice is just as shallow.

  • Ralph Hythloday

    There is no equivalency in Mr. Biden supporting abortion and same-sex marriage legislation and Mr. Ryan’s budget. Opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage is a settled issue in Catholic morality because both abortion and homosexual acts are mortal sins. You can not support either of those and be a “good” Catholic. However, Mr. Ryan’s budget is not a mortal sin. Catholics must strive to protect and care for the poor. However, there are legitimate, rational disagreements about the best way to reach that ideal. Whether Mr. Ryan’s budget reaches that ideal is an issue over which reasonably people can disagree. You and I can both be “good” Catholics but disagree about how to best care for the poor.

  • Aria

    *Having* an abortion may be a mortal sin. Refusing to endorse laws making it illegal is not: different people will have different ideas about how to best deal with the matter in the polical realm, just as different people have different ideas about how to deal with the poor when it comes to the political realm.

    What would be far more effective in reducing abortions is this: government programs which ensure that every pregnant mother gets free medical care until her baby is born, free medical care for her child after the child is born, and that every woman has a sufficient safety net to be able to care adequately for her child even if she is a single mother and can’t find a job, as well as government-funded childcare so women can continue to go to school or work after having a child if they want to. Women have abortions when they have good reason to believe that they absolutely cannot afford a child, or that having a child will force them to give up their career and hopes for the future. Fix that, and you will prevent abortions far more effectively than some law prohibiting them.

  • Steve Michael

    Aria, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Refusing to pass laws that uphold the sanctity of life is a sin. Also with the views of gay marriage Joe Biden has come out and endorsed it, so again that sound to me like someone who does not believe in the sanctity of marriage. Again a sin. I and others believe that laws are based off of morality first and then made to allow people to live together.

    Now for what I believe is the most misguided part of your comment. Your remaining argument is that the government and not the Church should aid pregnant mothers. It appears that you are trying to replace the function of the church with government, in essence making government your God. This is a dangerous slippery slope you are heading for and I would argue another sinful act. Your final statements about women have abortions for “good” reasons personally makes me ill, but I will try and explain why that is misguided. The child in the womb is a person and you argue that it is ok to murder someone for “good” reasons, you then give two reasons for murder as it will impact the parent(s) lifestyle and financial. You argue that murder is ok if it hinders a person financially? By using that thought then would it be ok for us to murder all the people on Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps and Unemployment? They are greatly effecting other peoples financial security? This goes back the fundamental difference between the two parties. One feels that the government should be a replacement/augmentation of their Church and the other does not. The core problem with the first group is that once the government takes the power to become your church they will inevitably do evil. Just look at Obamacare as an example.

    Where some in the Catholic church are wrong is to try and make the government an augmentation of the church. This is why Paul Ryan is right, in that controlling the out of control spending on social programs, will allow more people to CHOOSE what to do with their money and actually create more jobs and thus get more people working as opposed to leeching off of others. More people work, the more the Church gets in donations and the more “real” good that can be done. As opposed to the false good of giving more to the government and praying they will do the right thing. Something they have proven they will never do in the long run.