Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Thoughts on the the Antichrist: Part I, The Inversion of Values Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/thoughts_on_the_the_antichrist_i_the_inversion_of_values#628 Post contents: I have a question about: <i>"The problem with “values” is that they are inherently relative. (Consider, for a moment, the very meaning of the term.) “Conservative” Catholics have understood this when criticizing the “seamless garment” approach to politics, which was often used simply to justify the political agenda of the Democratic Party, but they have failed to realize that their own emphasis on values is, in some ways, even worse. At least the seamless garment has a presumption in favor of life, which is more than we can say for pro-life Catholics who have never met a war they didn’t like. "</i> I'm unfamiliar with the term "seamless garmet" so I googled it and found this article: http://www.wau.org/about/authors/scullion1.html The article says: <i>Pope John Paul II has forcefully stated that a consistent ethic of life must oppose a “culture of death.” This culture is one in which . . . the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless . . . unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty. . . . This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the gospel message. (Ecclesia in Amer-ica, #63, Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II, January 1999).</i> how is it Conservative Catholics are critical of that and why? how could this possibly be used to "justify the political agenda of the Democratic Party"? If I had the choice of voting for a politician who would end abortion saving the lives of millions of our children, but put us at war taking the lives of thousands it seems the choice is clear. Not that I have that choice or will have anytime soon. It seems all I realistically have to choose from now are: 1) Democrats who <i>may save</i> the lives of thousands by getting us out of this war, yet promoting and protecting the right to kill millions of children, and add to that the killing of the elderly and disabled. 2) Republicans who most likely will prolong the war, and do little or nothing to end the slaughter of millions of unborn babies. neither choice is acceptable and neither choice is acceptable in a "seamless garment" ethic as I understand it. So what's the fuss about? Sent at: 2008 10 06