I smite thee! ...The Diary of Nod

Bishop says "homosexual acts are intrinsically evil," on par with killing innocents but more important than war.

Well La-Di-Frickin-Da!

The archbishop of St. Louis wrote a letter explaining the absolutes of morality and how they apply to voting. Here's the Cliff's notes:

It is never permissible to vote for someone who supports any of the following:

1. Unrestricted abortion.
2. Euthanasia.
3. Same-sex marriages.
4. Stem-cell research.
5. Cloning.

It is permissible to vote for someone who supports any of these:

1. War.
2. Capital punishment.
3. Opposition of "social justice" issues such as poverty, education, law and equality, health care, housing, and/or hunger.

I'll tackle some of the "no way in hell" items first. Abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia and cloning all fall under the same umbrella of destruction of human life at all stages. Whether one agrees with the position, it is consistent and has significant worth--upon the basis that life begins at fertilization/conception/whatever, the defense of that life is extremely important.

Equating the defense of life with same-sex marriages misses the mark. The opposition to same-sex marriages appears to be based on the idea that "homosexual acts are intrinsically evil" and could never be excused. I think that presumption is a hard one to make when the archbishop states that war and capital punishment have legitimate purposes; there are so many actions of such a greater danger to life, liberty and harmony than who one chooses to have sexual relations with that placing this at the top of the list is absurd.

What does one do when faced with a choice of only two candidates one supports same-sex marriage and the other supports euthanasia? The archbishop allows for no dissent--one cannot vote for a candidate who supports any of those issues, leaving the voter without any option.

Now when one tackles the "approved" list, one sees that the archbishop does not view war or capital punishment as "intrinsically evil". He states, "neither practice includes the direct intention of killing innocent human beings. In some circumstances, self-defense and defense of the nation are not only rights, but responsibilities." Here he changes the subject--capital punishment and war have little, if anything, to do with defense.

Capital punishment is the execution of someone who has been captured; it is not necessary for defense as that individual is already imprisoned and society protected. It is also heavily debated how often "innocent" people are killed: there are numerous cases where states have executed individuals who were later exonerated, and many more where states refuse to allow testing of evidence or hearings to allow for the exoneration of execution victims. Furthermore, it is difficult to reconcile Catholic theology with any person being "innocent", as everyone has sinned in some form or fashion. So if no one is innocent, then convicted murderers are just as guilty as any sinner and no more deserving of execution.

War is not an action of self-defense. If you choose to go to war, then you have a choice and it was not necessary. War is a pre-meditated action. Innocents die in war, often in far greater numbers than military; innocents are often targetted, directly and as "collateral damage". War suffers from the same horrors the archbishop rallies against--the murder of "innocents".

To suggest that it is acceptable to execute a helpless prisoner or promote war which slaughters non-combatants...but any support of homosexual unions is condemned...the archbishop has lost his sense of priorities.

posted by Lachlan @ 12:50 AM