Catholics' disregard of teaching does not make it untrue

Ms. Campbell:

Rather than continuously upbraiding ordinary Catholics for voting for pro-choice candidates, wouldn't it be simpler for you, Frank Pavone, Raymond Burke and Joseph Ratzinger to call out by name the six Catholic Supreme Court justices who are allowing abortion to continue unabated in this country?

If they wanted, those justices could agree to hear any case that even remotely touched on the issue of abortion and overturn Rowe v Wade overnight -- and there's nothing anyone could do about it. If abortion is as important as you would have us think, what could possibly exempt them from their moral duties as Catholics?

Perhaps you think, as Frank Pavone recently stated on EWTN, that judges must not let their personal beliefs interfere with the impartial dispensing of justice for all. If that's a valid reason for judges not following Catholic moral teaching, why isn't it a valid reason for legislators? Why must Catholic legislators vote as the Pope directs, but not judges?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches many things that are demonstrably false. Why listen to them?

You assume, without offering a shred of evidence, that the moral opinions of the Pope are of value or should be respected. I reject your assumption, not only because you offered no evidence, but also because you are taking moral teachings from a man who conspired with a huge number of bishops to hide the rape of children and keep the rapists from being punished properly.

Sorry, but I refuse to accept the claim that it is immoral to allow dying people to be freed from pain from someone who acts as if it is moral to allow a rapist to go free. Find a new moral advisor, the one you currently rely on is not at all moral.

If by 'Your Religion Informing Your Political Views,' you mean, 'Thinking Your Religion Gives You The Right To Use Government To Impose Those Views Over Others,' well, Ma'am.

...that's not what voting or America are for Actually, that attitude *abnegates* the very principles by which we claim the right to self-governance, and existence as a nation.

Democracy in America is not meant to be theocracy by proxy. In fact, not imposing purely-religious views or religion itself on *anyone* in America is one of the very limitations we place on our government, even if one group thinks it can 'win' at it.

Popular or not, you simply don't have the *right.* This is one of the guarantees of our Liberty, and it protects us all.

When you mix religion and politics, you get politics, and, you know, if you put things on the footing you advocate, it doesn't have a history of going well for Catholics and Protestants, no matter how many others they oppress.

"That many Catholics disregard this teaching (Pope Benedict's regarding abortion and euthanasia) does not change its validity ..."

And nothing establishes its validity either. Oh, wait. I forgot that popes can't make mistakes regarding faith and morals, at least not since the First Vatican Council in 1870. After that, the doctrine of infallibility guarantees they are right because they say they are right. A bit circular and convenient, but being pope has its perks.

Those of us who think for ourselves will make our own decisions regarding abortion, euthanasia, and other moral questions, and we will vote our consciences.

Ms. Campbell, you speak as though catholic dogma is well established, in a scientific manner. It is not only not established, but it does not even come close to being plausible. It is a dogma built on foundation of superstition and ignorance. It is the secular and scientific approach that is for sure provide us a far better guidance than any of the world scripture can. It may very well be science may not provide answers to all or any of our ethical dilemmas, but secular approach does help us inching towards a more moral way. History is replete with the ethical lapses and utter immorality of following the scriptural admonishments, which do not need enumeration here.

The secular approach, certainly does not provide moral guidance that is eternal hence forth, but rather provides for its correction as time flows. Ethical & moral dilemmas are not binary issues but rather a set continua. People shall be able to discuss these ethical dilemmas in the public square in a secular manner based on the prevailing and ever evolving social standards and the knowledge science can provide. Yes ethical & social standards are evolving. There is no escaping that. Even the ardent literalists do use an evolving yardstick. We here in the west are horrified when we here that a hands of a petty thief are chopped off in Saudi Arabia, or that a woman was stoned to death for her immodesty, so on and so forth. Yet these are the same proscriptions laid out in all the scriptures. Yet the most ardent literalist will not impose such sever and barbaric punishments today. Even if one were to follow the scriptural prescriptions, don't we all (almost unanimously) find that it is a grotesque punishment to chop of the hands of starving indigent stealing a loaf of bread, same as Bernie Madoff? Lets face it the best we can say of scripture today, in 21st century, is that it was written by people who were at best ignorant and were not coping with the vagaries and luxuries of 21st century.

One of the admonishments of the RCC is against Euthanasia. There are two sides may be several side to that issue. It is not the prerogative of a cabal of men in Rome, for that matter anywhere else in the US, to decide for all Catholics how to exercise their privilege in our public square. This is undue interference by the church. I understand that people bring their life experience, their introspection, their insights gained form their entire life to bear in the public square. Insofar as that includes religious belief too, that is fine. However, some authority or officer of the church or temple coerces them that is not acceptable. If an individual for him/herself decides to follow the church doctrine in their personal life that is fine. But to impose it on rest of us that is not acceptable.

I do not know whether every doctrine of the church is untrue, although I lean towards them being untrue in most cases, one can certainly say they are not necessarily true either.