Textbooks in the Middle East

[Evermore]

Same here I had a catholic upbringing heavily involved with the church. I got tired of the bullshit they try and lay on you. ( For instance; I actually had a priest come to my house ad tell us we were not giving them enough money.) I didnt quite go the route Arlos did but i have not really be involved in the church since..

[Kramer]

Ya I wouldnt say that. Catholics are supposed to be christians but there are alot that you could never tell.

if you think that it is any different depending on what label you wear (catholic, orthodox, protestant and any of the flavors attached) you are quite blind....

you are talking about groups of people. people are shitheads, selfish and ugly to each other no matter what group you are in, it all comes out eventually.

[Evermore]

err, that's the point of the statement.

[Lueyen]

Now, skipping to the end where it is something that I can formulate a proper response to - how I'm able to see through another country's eyes. The only reason I'm responding to your thread at all was to answer you here, because I think it's incredibly unfair of you to think me so much a sheep that I feel a certain way simply because my s/o is from another country and has a specific opinion. I've voiced lots of opinions over the years, and I'd hope that regardless of your disagreements with me you would give me a little more credit than 'just because your s/o feels that way you do.'

To answer your question, though, it is not based on an opinion I've gotten from Jonathan - we've all gamed over the years, and through gaming you meet people all over the world and have different conversations.
'

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I kept forgetting to.

Gypsiyee it was not my intent to insinuate that the views you hold are held solely because of Jonathan, but as you have stated virtually everyone has to some degree gotten to know people all over the world due to the internet (regardless of the form it takes, mmorpgs, chat rooms, forums, blogs, irc, ect). The only real difference between your exposure to people from other countries and mine that you could feasibly know of would be that I haven't every mentioned an intimate relationship with someone from another country as you have. So when you state something like

if you could see us through the eyes of any other country, you'd probably agree

you insinuate that you have some area of insight beyond my own... given the known differences in our experiences I would have to assume that your presumed extra insight comes from the one difference you and I know of.

As far as opinions of the US on a global scale, negativity toward the US is not a new thing. A friend once told me how her grandmother feared US troops even as they were fighting to stop the advance of the axis powers into her country. I would submit to you that anytime we take any action whatever the form on the world stage there will be those who dislike us for it. Take for instance Obama's statements surrounding the Global Poverty Act, and his plans for Africa. He plans to dump more cash into the region. While well intentioned, more money by it's self will not solve the issues of the continent. One must recognize that it is corrupt governments and regional oppressive warlords that do not want the situation for the people to improve, and often times this financial aid finds it's way into their hands rather then the people who need it. Yet if we make prudent efforts that negatively impact these corrupt and evil entities we would draw criticisms for sticking our noses in where they don't belong. When one reflects on the old adage you can't make everyone happy all of the time, Ron Pauls Isolationist stances start to really sound good.

The difference is that one teaching addresses how a divine being will pass judgment, and what the results will be, the other puts the passing of judgment into the hands of fallible mankind.

good to know you oppose the death penalty

God is the proper judge and executioner for the laws of God, Man is the proper jury and executioner for the laws of man. The discussion was dealing with the theoretical laws of God, not those instituted by man to protect society, two entirely different concepts, at least in this country, and in my personal beliefs. So where as I would oppose the death penalty for refusal to follow a particular religious philosophy, I do not oppose it for being used in cases where someone has demonstrated the will and capability to take innocent life.

The difference is that one teaching addresses how a divine being will pass judgment, and what the results will be, the other puts the passing of judgment into the hands of fallible mankind.

The number of Christian who actually follow the rules as interpreted by Lueyen? Zero.

All Christians pass judgement on others, including you. I guess that means heaven is a pretty lonely place.

I think most Christians would tell you that none are perfect, but thankfully God is forgiving and perfection need not be attained to enter heaven.

I’d also like to point out that since you think any Catholic who does anything which you deem immoral, whether it’s present in the bible or not, is not a catholic

That isn't what I said at all, I realize it was long, slightly complex and may have completely baffled you because of a short attention span so I'll state it short and simple:

If you do not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, you aren't Catholic, even if you claim to be.

, why is it that the same logic can’t be applied to Muslims?
You don’t actually think the vast majority of Muslim mosques teach violence against other religions? They represent a minority just as those who teach hate are the minority in your religion. You just choose to dwell on them because it makes your sports team seem that much better. And also because you’re a bigot. Not very Christian of you, I know, but hey, nobodies perfect. Go to confession and all your sins will be absolved in the eyes of God…

I would apply that same logic here. If you do not believe or practice a radical fundamentalist version of Islam then you are not a radical fundamentalist Muslim. I'll state it again for the record, I do not consider Islam bad, I do not consider all Muslims as terrorists. I do recognize that Islam is used as a vessel of perversion for many terrorist groups around the world, and even if I don't practice Islam, I consider this very evil in it's nature. Like Christianity there are some very good things Islam teaches, like Christianity there are some teachings that aren't applicable in modern times, and like Christianity Islam is susceptible to a twisted and perverted view of it's message as a whole by taking certain parts out of context... but you and Brinstar should both understand that very well, you two seem to be masters of it, strike that Brinstar is good at it you kinda suck at it.

[brinstar]

The difference is that one teaching addresses how a divine being will pass judgment, and what the results will be, the other puts the passing of judgment into the hands of fallible mankind.

good to know you oppose the death penalty

God is the proper judge and executioner for the laws of God, Man is the proper jury and executioner for the laws of man. The discussion was dealing with the theoretical laws of God, not those instituted by man to protect society, two entirely different concepts, at least in this country, and in my personal beliefs. So where as I would oppose the death penalty for refusal to follow a particular religious philosophy, I do not oppose it for being used in cases where someone has demonstrated the will and capability to take innocent life.

that's utter bullshit! you can't have it both ways. how could the death penalty POSSIBLY be anything other than putting "the passing of judgment into the hands of fallible mankind"? murder is murder, and you are a fucking hypocrite.

[Lueyen]

God is the proper judge and executioner for the laws of God, Man is the proper jury and executioner for the laws of man. The discussion was dealing with the theoretical laws of God, not those instituted by man to protect society, two entirely different concepts, at least in this country, and in my personal beliefs. So where as I would oppose the death penalty for refusal to follow a particular religious philosophy, I do not oppose it for being used in cases where someone has demonstrated the will and capability to take innocent life.

that's utter bullshit! you can't have it both ways. how could the death penalty POSSIBLY be anything other than putting "the passing of judgment into the hands of fallible mankind"? murder is murder, and you are a fucking hypocrite.

murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

There is nothing unlawful about the state putting someone to death for the conviction of certain crimes, hence it is not murder. Semantics aside however are courts passing divine judgment are the laws forbidding acts punishable by the death penalty divine in nature because they apply the death penalty? I submit to you that if tomorrow every single person in our society became a devout atheist, murder would still be illegal.
Laws forbidding murder are not on the books because of divine law, but on the books to protect society as a whole. Passing judgment in a criminal case for the charge of murder is not in any way shape or form inserting any man in place of God for passing divine judgment, no more then a judge is inserted in place of God in any criminal case.

If however there were laws on the books making it a crime to follow a particular religious faith, then yes in a sense we would be inserting human judges in place of what should be divine judgment. Of course we muddy the waters a bit if your religious faith tells you to go murder people, however at that point your rights to practice religion are superseded by the rights of others.

But I don't think you would reasonably argue that putting someone on trial and convicting them of murder would be incongruent with what I stated.

Where your real problem lies I suspect is with the application of the death penalty. Most religions and laws provide for the exception to killing being murder if it is in self defense. If you kill someone in self defense, it is not an unlawful killing and hence not murder. The same holds true with the state in it's responsibility to defend society. Now while I do question the validity of the death penalty as a deterrent, I do not question it's validity when it comes to defending society. The number of executions performed by the state for the former is vastly more common, but there are cases of the latter. When incarceration can not keep someone from either directly taking another life or as is more likely taking a life via proxy then I have absolutely no issue with the use of the death penalty.

In the end however, regardless of your feelings of the death penalty as a deterrent or as a means of protecting society, none of this falls under divine laws, but those made by man to keep order in society.

For a message board where many members are ardent supporters of the idea of separation of church and state, we sure have quite a few recently who can not get their heads around the concept of differences between religious laws and governmental laws.

[Gypsiyee]

Gypsiyee it was not my intent to insinuate that the views you hold are held solely because of Jonathan, but as you have stated virtually everyone has to some degree gotten to know people all over the world due to the internet (regardless of the form it takes, mmorpgs, chat rooms, forums, blogs, irc, ect). The only real difference between your exposure to people from other countries and mine that you could feasibly know of would be that I haven't every mentioned an intimate relationship with someone from another country as you have. So when you state something like

if you could see us through the eyes of any other country, you'd probably agree

you insinuate that you have some area of insight beyond my own... given the known differences in our experiences I would have to assume that your presumed extra insight comes from the one difference you and I know of.

Actually, that wasn't my implication at all. What I was insinuating was that based on several of your posts over the years, you seem to be of the mindset of many people I know on the right - that we are here to help regulate the world, the world knows and understands that we are a superpower, and that while they may not like it it is understood that we're meant to help people.

You are incredibly 'patriotic' and while I would never look down on that, it is my experience that most americans who are staunch patriots also express a severe inability to see what we are to most of the world - an overzealous and overbearing country of conceit and ignorance. We stupidly believe that because we feel we're the greatest nation in the world, that we are better than other nations, that our way is best, and we try to convince people that it is. We're not just talking fear or discontent with the US, we're talking about being the fat stupid kid at the party that everyone invited to make fun of but we think we were invited because we were cool. The world doesn't respect us, they laugh at us - we're a joke to a lot of people, and we're even funnier when we're trying to be serious.

A very, very right-wing person once told me that we are the world's saviors and God made us that way, and the world understands that - and even though they don't always show it, they appreciate what we were put here to do.

When I heard that, I threw up in my mouth a little. This sort of ignorance is just despicable, and seems to be a common theme amongst many people I've met who are this new definition of conservative - it is views like this not only in citizens, but in Washington too that have flipped me a complete 180 and put me rather far to the left.

So no, my statement to you had nothing to do with my insight based on Jonathan's views - it has to do with my insight to the many people in my life on the right.

[brinstar]

For a message board where many members are ardent supporters of the idea of separation of church and state, we sure have quite a few recently who can not get their heads around the concept of differences between religious laws and governmental laws.

not exactly. the reality here is that you are condemning one group of people for killing, while condoning another for the very same thing. all your spin and justification simply serves the purpose of convincing yourself the two are different, but-- silly me-- all i see are humans killing other humans in the name of an ideology. whether the ideology is religious or governmental in nature is irrelevant, the only ACTUAL difference is that you agree with one and disagree with the other.

if every pending death sentence in america were suddenly commuted to life without parole, society would not crumble. the notion that the death penalty somehow "defends society" is nothing more than empty rhetoric that would be laughable if it didn't deal directly with taking life.

[Zanchief]

If you do not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, you aren't Catholic, even if you claim to be.

That would be a pretty subjective argument their buddy.

Anyone who YOU believe doesn't follow the teaching of the church isn't a Catholic. So, in essence, you are passing judgement on them based on how YOU interpret some vague religious teachings past on over thousands of years.

[Naethyn]

When one reflects on the old adage you can't make everyone happy all of the time, Ron Pauls Isolationist stances start to really sound good.

Isolationism isn't what I advocate. I advocate non-intervention, not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and not pretending a country like Iraq is equivalent to Nazi Germany. Iraq had no army, no navy, had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11, so the comparison makes no sense.

[Lueyen]

For a message board where many members are ardent supporters of the idea of separation of church and state, we sure have quite a few recently who can not get their heads around the concept of differences between religious laws and governmental laws.

not exactly. the reality here is that you are condemning one group of people for killing, while condoning another for the very same thing. all your spin and justification simply serves the purpose of convincing yourself the two are different, but-- silly me-- all i see are humans killing other humans in the name of an ideology. whether the ideology is religious or governmental in nature is irrelevant, the only ACTUAL difference is that you agree with one and disagree with the other.

Actually I was only originally arguing the difference between teaching children to hate other people because of differing ideology, and teaching what will supposedly happen to them in the afterlife. I was not talking about anyone killing anyone in the statement you quoted trying to link it to the death penalty. What you seem to be saying is that you see no difference between murder and killing out of self defense. If you don't make that distinction, that is fine, but historically governments and religions have by enlarge.

if every pending death sentence in america were suddenly commuted to life without parole, society would not crumble.the notion that the death penalty somehow "defends society" is nothing more than empty rhetoric that would be laughable if it didn't deal directly with taking life.

When a person convicted of murder is able to order innocent peoples deaths from prison while under solitary lock down putting them to death is absolutely protecting society.

[brinstar]

not surprisingly, you twisted what i said. i DO draw a distinction between murder and killing in self-defence. what i DON'T draw a distinction between is killing justified by religion and killing justified by the state. they're both killing in the name of an ideology, which is wrong.

oh, and if an inmate in solitary lockdown can get orders out to people on the outside to commit murders, then there's something wrong with your solitary lockdown. you solve THAT problem by fixing the prison system, not by whacking the guy. like they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail, and a leaky prison system is not a nail.

[Lueyen]

not surprisingly, you twisted what i said. i DO draw a distinction between murder and killing in self-defence. what i DON'T draw a distinction between is killing justified by religion and killing justified by the state. they're both killing in the name of an ideology, which is wrong.

Would you draw a distinction between imprisoning someone because of murder and imprisoning someone because they chose to follow a certain religion, is it okay to do one and not the other?

oh, and if an inmate in solitary lockdown can get orders out to people on the outside to commit murders, then there's something wrong with your solitary lockdown. you solve THAT problem by fixing the prison system, not by whacking the guy. like they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail, and a leaky prison system is not a nail.

And how many innocent people would you allow to be murdered while you tried to figure out where the leak was, what if moving the person to a different prison did not make a difference, what if the leak was never found? I'm sorry but in a case like this it is absolutely a case of the state executing someone in defense of innocent people who's lives are threatened.

[Lueyen]

If you do not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, you aren't Catholic, even if you claim to be.

That would be a pretty subjective argument their buddy.

Anyone who YOU believe doesn't follow the teaching of the church isn't a Catholic. So, in essence, you are passing judgement on them based on how YOU interpret some vague religious teachings past on over thousands of years.

It's not subjective at all, and what I refer to is not vague religious teachings. In the previously cited example homosexuality was the topic given. I do not see how you can in anyway interpret the stance of the Catholic Church regarding acts of homosexuality:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Agree or disagree with the premise of those teachings all you like, but these are the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith is not a cafeteria line where you take what you like and leave the rest. At the very least in the example cited here, there is nothing to interpret it is spelled out pretty clearly.

[Arlos]

One can quite easily be a "good catholic" and yet disagree with some of its teachings. Last I checked, even the Church wasn't going so far as to openly promote excommunication of any member that was pro-abortion or pro-birth-control.

In another example, a significant segment of the church feels that women should be ordained as priests. Right now, church leadership doesn't agree.

Not to mention, it's not like the church hasn't been absolutely proved wrong, before. Just look at what they did to Galileo, when in point of fact he was RIGHT.

As a result, the Church considers that in matters that have not been pronounced by the pope In Ex Cathedra, room for error and fallibility exists. As such, there is a place for argument and dissent. The Jesuits aren't known as some of the world's premier debaters for nothing, after all.

Last I checked, while the Pope has come out pretty strongly anti-abortion and anti-birth control, not to mention the general opposition to homosexuality, ALL of those stances have been presented as normal level of teaching. NONE of them have been pronounced in Ex Cathedra status, and as such, all have room for dissent.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

not surprisingly, you twisted what i said. i DO draw a distinction between murder and killing in self-defence. what i DON'T draw a distinction between is killing justified by religion and killing justified by the state. they're both killing in the name of an ideology, which is wrong.

Would you draw a distinction between imprisoning someone because of murder and imprisoning someone because they chose to follow a certain religion, is it okay to do one and not the other?

i'm not sure what the point of your question is. when have i ever said that either of those things is "okay"? it seems you're filtering my arguments through your beliefs to hear only what you want me to say.

oh, and if an inmate in solitary lockdown can get orders out to people on the outside to commit murders, then there's something wrong with your solitary lockdown. you solve THAT problem by fixing the prison system, not by whacking the guy. like they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail, and a leaky prison system is not a nail.

And how many innocent people would you allow to be murdered while you tried to figure out where the leak was, what if moving the person to a different prison did not make a difference, what if the leak was never found? I'm sorry but in a case like this it is absolutely a case of the state executing someone in defense of innocent people who's lives are threatened.

you act like this happens on a daily basis, that it's a race against the clock to snuff out death row inmates before they pick off any other innocent civilians. how dramatic, how laughably alarmist. why, there must be THOUSANDS of people murdered in the years and years it takes the average state to execute someone! think of all the lives we could save by killing them right away!

yours is the worst kind, bloodthirst cloaked in piety.

[Zanchief]

Agree or disagree with the premise of those teachings all you like, but these are the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith is not a cafeteria line where you take what you like and leave the rest. At the very least in the example cited here, there is nothing to interpret it is spelled out pretty clearly.

But all Catholics choose what to believe in and what to ignore. The church has evolved so much over the last two thousand years. That evolution alone proves that the Church is not a static set of rules but an organic entity. You can claim all you want that the rules which govern your life are infallible and without compromise, but I'm not going to buy it for one minute.

[Tikker]

that and god doesn't exist

[Lueyen]

Would you draw a distinction between imprisoning someone because of murder and imprisoning someone because they chose to follow a certain religion, is it okay to do one and not the other?

i'm not sure what the point of your question is. when have i ever said that either of those things is "okay"? it seems you're filtering my arguments through your beliefs to hear only what you want me to say.

My point is that you would call me hypocritical for support of the death penalty but condemn execution for religious belief. You would view any rational that I give regarding a cause effect relationship between the crime committed and the death penalty being employed as a mere justification. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those two statements reflect your view. What I was attempting to point out is that you are willing to accept penalties for breaking the law, where you would not accept those same penalties for following a religious faith. Therefore if I am being hypocritical in support of the death penalty for breaking the law, but condemning it for not following a particular religious belief you are just as hypocritical for having the same mind set when it comes to other forms of penalty. The reality is, is that neither of us is hypocritical and just attempting to justify punishment by the state, but we disagree on to what extent a particular punishment is justifiable.

And how many innocent people would you allow to be murdered while you tried to figure out where the leak was, what if moving the person to a different prison did not make a difference, what if the leak was never found? I'm sorry but in a case like this it is absolutely a case of the state executing someone in defense of innocent people who's lives are threatened.

you act like this happens on a daily basis, that it's a race against the clock to snuff out death row inmates before they pick off any other innocent civilians. how dramatic, how laughably alarmist. why, there must be THOUSANDS of people murdered in the years and years it takes the average state to execute someone! think of all the lives we could save by killing them right away!

yours is the worst kind, bloodthirst cloaked in piety.

While I may question the extent to which we employ the death penalty, I am not willing to categorically oppose it completely specifically because of a case like the one I mentioned above. What I stated above is not something I made up to make an argument, it is not a theoretical situation, but one that I saw transpire. I knew people who were in fear of their lives simply for their part in the trial and conviction of a man named Mark Hopkinson. He managed to put out a contract killing that succeeded on a witness to his trial, and even from death row in a separate jail system in a completely separate state still managed to put out contracts on people, although thankfully they were not successful. Had he not been executed I believe it would have only been a matter of time before he managed to arrange one that was.

So if it's an all or nothing question, then yes I support it, however I don't necessarily agree with the frequency at which it is employed. You however seem to oppose it no matter what the conditions, so I ask again, in a case like this one, how many decent innocent people would you allow to be killed before finally conceding that execution was necessary to protect people?

[Lueyen]

Agree or disagree with the premise of those teachings all you like, but these are the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith is not a cafeteria line where you take what you like and leave the rest. At the very least in the example cited here, there is nothing to interpret it is spelled out pretty clearly.

But all Catholics choose what to believe in and what to ignore. The church has evolved so much over the last two thousand years. That evolution alone proves that the Church is not a static set of rules but an organic entity.

That is not the what the Catholic Church teaches, it is not the way that faith is setup, to make assertions otherwise is flat out wrong. If what you assert were true then there would have never been any cause for the protestant reformations. If you call yourself a Catholic, yet ignore the teachings of the Catholic Church, then you are not practicing Catholicism, it is as simple as that.

You can claim all you want that the rules which govern your life are infallible and without compromise, but I'm not going to buy it for one minute.

I claimed no such thing, and in the context of the discussion, I'm assuming you missed the fact that I've stated I do not practice Catholicism.

[Harrison]

that and god doesn't exist

Hey guys, I know everything.

[Arlos]

Lueyen, the Catholic church once taught that Aristotle was right, that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and burned people at the stake for claiming differently. Hell, they burned people at the stake for claiming that stars in the sky were other suns, perhaps with other planets.

The belief that the earth was at the center of God's universe was considered a bedrock matter of faith.

They still teach that? Hmmm?

I repeat: In all matters OTHER than when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, the Catholic Church recognizes that there is room for some dissent and disagreement. Obviously, matters where he DOES speak so, he is considered infallible and speaking with the voice of God, and so no dispute is allowed there, but the Pope doesn't do that very often. Even in matters as supposedly core-fundamentals like female priests, the Pope has NEVER spoken about the issue Ex Cathedra, and as such room for disagreement exists.

If everything in Catholic faith was neat and tidy and with no room for argument or disagreement, why would the Jesuits be so heavily trained in logic and debate? You are taking a very very narrow view of Catholicism, sir. As I said before, even in the cases of Catholic politicians voting pro-abortion lines, not even THIS Pope has come out directly, publicly and openly in favor of mass excommunication, which would be the logical outcome if you were right and supporting abortion meant you were somehow not a catholic. It would seem even the Pope disagrees with your premise.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Lueyen, the Catholic church once taught that Aristotle was right, that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and burned people at the stake for claiming differently. Hell, they burned people at the stake for claiming that stars in the sky were other suns, perhaps with other planets.

The belief that the earth was at the center of God's universe was considered a bedrock matter of faith.

They still teach that? Hmmm?

Nope, but if the Catholic Church considers it's teachings as being porous and up for debate, why would you burn people at the stake for dissent regarding church teaching?

I repeat: In all matters OTHER than when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, the Catholic Church recognizes that there is room for some dissent and disagreement. Obviously, matters where he DOES speak so, he is considered infallible and speaking with the voice of God, and so no dispute is allowed there, but the Pope doesn't do that very often. Even in matters as supposedly core-fundamentals like female priests, the Pope has NEVER spoken about the issue Ex Cathedra, and as such room for disagreement exists.

Wrong. Teachings of the Sacred Magisterium are also considered infallible. That is to say that when the Pope and Bishops define doctrine and teachings of the Church, it is considered infallible. Room for disagreement exists amongst clergy, but not for lay people.

If everything in Catholic faith was neat and tidy and with no room for argument or disagreement, why would the Jesuits be so heavily trained in logic and debate? You are taking a very very narrow view of Catholicism, sir. As I said before, even in the cases of Catholic politicians voting pro-abortion lines, not even THIS Pope has come out directly, publicly and openly in favor of mass excommunication, which would be the logical outcome if you were right and supporting abortion meant you were somehow not a catholic. It would seem even the Pope disagrees with your premise.

-Arlos

Pope Benedict stated that these people faced the possibility of excommunication under cannon law. Rev. Federico Lombardi the spokesperson for the Vatican asserted that mass excommunication was unnecessary because these people had automatically excommunicated themselves in their actions. To further support that stance, the pope has asserted that politicians who were consistently taking pro abortion stances must be warned and absent any changes then be denied communion. The intent behind stopping short of officially excommunicating people is not to validate their stance or condone it, but to work toward bringing them in line with Catholic teaching.