More On the Morality of Funding
Here is the basic question: should Catholics oppose all collective funding of activities that are deemed immoral? I use the term collective funding rather than public funding to take into account things like privately-provided health insurance which is typically paid for by an implicit tax on earnings. In a previous post, a commentor argued that Catholics should oppose the provision of non-abortion contraceptive funding through either public or private insurance, on the grounds that the funded activities are intrinsically evil. I don’t intend this post to focus on contraception, but rather to use this example as a springboard toward some broader questions, such as whether such a maximalist approach is justified and why there is not a greater element of consistency.
For sure, there are certain funding decisions that we should oppose. And yes, abortion is one of them. There are others too in this category, but I’ll get to that. But for now: what about benefits provided to same-sex couples, for example? I do not see any obligation to oppose this, under certain conditions, and indeed, the church has tacitly accepted this solution since then-archbishop Levada’s agreement with the City of San Francisco in the mid-1990s. In his landmark decision, Levada declared his willingness to allow Catholic organizations pay such benefits, as long as they were not deemed same-sex benefits, and could encompass any person living at the same address as the beneficiary. Note that we are not just talking about mere tacit acceptance of public funding here– in this particular case, the Church was undoubtedly paying same-sex benefits to some people. But it was a valid compromise.
A similar argument could probably be made in relation to contraception, appealing to John Courtney Murray’s masterly reasoning. In particular, Murray argued that the coercive function of law should be restricted to narrow circumstances, and should focus exclusively on safeguarding “public peace, public morality, and justice”, addressing threats that “seriously undermine the foundations of society or gravely threaten the moral life of the community”. He argued against using coercive law to deal with issues of private morality, and be placed artificial contraceptive technology in this category. While it may have public consequences, he felt that these consequences would be difficult to control by law, and anyway, using coercive law might backfire and cause other social ills. He also appealed to the notion of religious liberty, noting in particular that it would be difficult for Catholics to oppose it when many religious leaders saw it as morally right. Even people like George Weigel seem to accept this reasoning, stressing the difference between the fifth commandment status of abortion and the sixth commandment status of contraceptive use (“conjugal morality”). For sure, there is a difference between decriminalization and active collective funding, but I think the same arguments can be employed. And if not, are not the debates over the Mexico City policy moot? For if we are to oppose all non-abortion contraceptive funding, does that not pretty much rule out most family planning services?
But there are other collective funding decisions that are far more important, even up there with abortion, and I believe these should also be opposed. American Catholics tend not to talk too loudly about these issues. I’m talking largely about the enormous military budget. In a recent post, I criticized the differing reaction to US funds going to aid agencies abroad that cooperate in abortion and US funds going to the Israel military to commit war crimes in Gaza. Outrage over one, silence (worse, even tacit approval) over the other. Now, the church does allow for a legitimate defense, but not if these funds are used (or intended to be used) in ways that are intrinsically evil, which the direct targeting of civilians.
Let me focus on a huge elephant in the room: the continued possession and funding of nuclear weapons. As noted by a triumvirate of esteemed moral theologians, all highly orthodox natural law theorists– John Finnis, Joseph BoyleGermain Grisez — nuclear deterrence is morally unjustifiable, as it is based on the credible threat that these weapons will be used to kill innocents. If nuclear deterrence is morally unjustifiable, then public funding must also be so. There is a small wrinkle: the church (including Pope John Paul) taught that holding a nuclear deterrent could be morally justifiable only as an interim measure on a path toward disarmament. This condition has clearly not been met. Why do American Catholics not speak out more about this subject, especially since many take maximalist positions on funding immoral activities in other areas?
Let me finish with this very issue of consistency. The real problem I have is that while many Catholics take a maximalist stance on some issues (typically related to sexual morality), they take a minimalist stance on other issues of justice, including war and violence. The stereotype in the secular culture is that Catholics and other Christians are obsessed with sex, and nothing else. It’s not true: we oppose abortion because it is a life issue, not a sexual morality issue (Weigel’s distinction between fifth and sixth commandment morality). And yet, when all Catholics get excited about besides abortion is gays and condoms, well, it’s difficult to disabuse the secular culture of its preconceptions. This feeds into an issue I keep bringing up: if we are to persuade the “moderate middle” (who do not believe that abortion is a “good” and hence to be supported in unlimited quantities) of the virtues of imposing legal restrictions on abortion, that can only be done if we are consistent in our approach to life. In other words, if we give more emphasis to the really important life issues, and not so much to the secondary sexual ones.
Comments are closed.
should Catholics oppose all collective funding of activities that are deemed immoral?
Yes, because all immorality is equal. Masturbation = abortion = torture = unjust war = speeding = sex & violence on TV = corporate corruption = political corruption = terrorism = slavery = et cetera ad nauseum.
Please. If you pile enough issues together, you can effectively prevent progress on any of them.
I think Murray is wrong. I’m not really sure there is such a thing as public and private morality. For example, what is the substantive difference between the man who smokes a joint in his home and the man who smokes on the capital steps? But even if we concede there is such a difference, I think we make a categorical error by making sex or more specifically procreation a private act. It seems to me that sex is social. There is nothing more profound that a society undertakes than the bringing forth and raising of the next generation. To understand that purely as a series of personal choices I think seriously understates the phenomenon.
While I agree in the concept of collective sin, I think it is different in kind than personal sin. I qua American choose to support abortion. I qua self would never support it and think it should be legally proscribed. Many people seem to think that the latter should give me an exemption from culpability for the former. And to be frank I’m not sure how to describe my culpability and that of my fellow Americans particularly with regard to abortion. (Likewise, I don’t know to the extent I would find a particular Palestinian responsible for their government.) I do believe that the culpability is real, even for the most fervent opposer of abortion, in so much as we enjoy communion with the society that aborts however many millions.
As noted by a triumvirate of esteemed moral theologians, all highly orthodox natural law theorists– John Finnis, Joseph Boyle and Germain Grisez — nuclear deterrence is morally unjustifiable, as it is based on the credible threat that these weapons will be used to kill innocents.
If you’re representing it accurately, it’s hard to take this view seriously. The whole point of deterrence is that the use of nuclear weapons would thereby be avoided. Moreover, I’ve read recently (can’t remember where) that Reagan privately said something to the effect that even if Russia nuked America, he wouldn’t actually retaliate, because there would be no purpose at that point.
Thus, I’m not sure what sort of legerdemain is used to attribute the killing of innocents to a policy that is specifically designed and intended to avoid the killing of innocents.
The point of a nuclear deterrence is to stop other countries attacking you, on the basis that the weapons would be used on them if they made a first move. In other words, the intention is to do something intrinsically evil in retaliation; otherwise, the threat is not credible. And the United States is the only country to have committed this particular evil– and had not atoned for it (indeed, conventional wisdom praises the action on consequentialist grounds). Church teaching is pretty clear on this point: nuclear deterrence can only be defended on a temporary basis during the process of disarmament.
…should Catholics oppose all collective funding of activities that are [in fact intrinsically] immoral?
A thoughtful question.
My answer is that, all other things equal, yes, in every case without exception. There may be prudential reasons not to oppose funding of contraception in a particular case at a particular time; but that must always be viewed as a temporary concession to practical limitations, a mere toleration never an acceptance.
Funding the military on the other hand is not merely licit, it is morally required. The Catechism tells us that paying taxes and defending one’s country are moral obligations. Military power can be and often is used immorally, and there is no excusing that; but comparing it to funding contraception is a non-starter. There is never any moral justification for deliberately funding contraception, period: at most, tolerating its funding as something done by others might be morally licit with a proportionate reason. On the other hand there is a positive moral obligation to fund and support the defense of the nation.
Funding contraception is comparable to funding torture: it is something we should never choose or initiate or support ourselves, and we should only tolerate it if we absolutely have to, and only to the extent we absolutely have to. Funding the military on the other hand is comparable to feeding the poor: it is something we all have a positive obligation to do, although it can be misused in destructive and evil ways. So the commensurable analogy to funding the military is spending on welfare: in both cases the abstract activity is not just good but morally obligatory; in practice it can be and often is done with evil intentions and consequences.
More generally, as long as you are attempting to draw a parallel between incommensurables your analogis will fail.
Thus, I’m not sure what sort of legerdemain is used to attribute the killing of innocents to a policy that is specifically designed and intended to avoid the killing of innocents.
S.B.,
Clearly the threat of retaliation is a deterrent to a first strike only if those who would strike first believe the United States would retaliate. Since the United States is not going to strike first, if we are not going to retaliate, why do we have a huge arsenal of missiles? We could save billions of dollars by building only fake missiles and pretending they are real.
I don’t believe Reagan ever said he wouldn’t retaliate. The idea of deterring a nuclear attack by merely pretending we would retaliate is silly. I hope no president ever takes it seriously.
Also I think the following is a subtle (or not so subtle) change of subject:
In particular, Murray argued that the coercive function of law should be restricted to narrow circumstances, and should focus exclusively on safeguarding “public peace, public morality, and justice”, addressing threats that “seriously undermine the foundations of society or gravely threaten the moral life of the community”.
I think a case might be made against criminalizing (non-abortaficient) contraception which would be much broader in scope than the case in favor of funding contraception[*]. More generally, “the blunt power of government should not be used to criminalize every conceivable immoral act” is a very different proposition from “Catholics should not oppose government funding of intrinsic evil”.
[*] On the other hand I think there is a very reasonable case to be made that contraception “seriously undermine[s] the foundations of society [and] gravely threaten[s] the moral life of the community”.
I would agree that getting rid of nuclear weapons would be a good idea, for reasons detailed here. I don’t view the issue as being terribly pressing, however, and as suspect that MM doesn’t really either (I suspect, for example, that if Obama could get rid of America’s nuclear arsenal only at the cost of not passing his health care plan, MM would say that he shouldn’t do it).
The point of a nuclear deterrence is to stop other countries attacking you, on the basis that the weapons would be used on them if they made a first move.
This is corrective. Otherwise, you do not have deterrence. Unless, of course, you are bluffing as S.B. noted Reagan did. An interesting aside: Jimmy Carter promised to actually use nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union in the even of a nuclear attack on the U.S.
bluffing as S.B. noted Reagan did
Can anyone document that Reagan claimed he would not have retaliated against a first strike by the Soviet Union?
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/nuclear.htm I think gives a good examination of what happened under Reagan, and I’ve never heard he was “bluffing” myself. I also don’t think he was. But I would be interested if one show it was a bluff; even as a bluff, one could question the legitimacy, of course.
Here’s a paragraph from a Rich Lowry’s 2005 review of a book titled Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons:
The Church doesn’t teach that contraception is intrinsically evil (ie always evil regardless of intent or circumstance).
She teaches that it is evil in marriage for a contraceptive intent.
Outside marriage or for a non-contraceptive intent, contraception is not intrinsically evil.
The bishops even mandate that contraception be offered to rape victims. They wouldn’t do this if they considered contraception to be intrinsically evil.
God Bless
MM,
Creating a two-tiered morality system, private and public, and advocating for it?
You’re sounding an awfully lot like those who pine for a protestant-esque dichotomy of morality, where morality is forced out of the public square. Sound familiar? We’ve been listening to it for quite some time now.
Murray was wrong then, and he remains wrong today. How dare Catholics attempt to oppose abortion, a private matter? Why, there are other religious leaders that say abortion is okay!
Pot. kettle. black.
LCB, it is patently obvious from Murray’s analysis that he did not see about as “private morality”. You might find his distinctions too nuanced for you taste, but they are valid distinctions.
The “abortifacient” contraception shtick is much along the lines of unicorn research.
The typical conservative Christian mostly cares about sex – other people’s sex, that is. Any real issues are – at best – secondary. Religious morality generally focuses on sex, it’s a great way to control people. The Catholics who don’t tend to be deemed “heterodox” and ridiculed as “old hippies”. Of course, it’s the born agains, the chastity pledgers that fatten the teen pregnancy and -abortion rates that elevate this country’s above the West, 5 if if not 10 times higher.
What does actually matter ? War, poverty, living conditions. Rights. Benefits.
In the end, we’re all full of crap. I’ve virulently opposed Bush’s Iraq war for a couple of years now. But, I still paid taxes. Those tax revenues fund the bombs that in turn fund the other side that in turn fund the bombs….
Chris,
The Church doesn’t teach that contraception is intrinsically evil (ie always evil regardless of intent or circumstance).
She teaches that it is evil in marriage for a contraceptive intent.
Outside marriage or for a non-contraceptive intent, contraception is not intrinsically evil.
The bishops even mandate that contraception be offered to rape victims. They wouldn’t do this if they considered contraception to be intrinsically evil.
Taking birth control for acne is not immoral (although, probably medically it is unethical due to the serious side effects). Having voluntary sexual relations out of marriage is intrinsically evil contraceptive or not, having voluntary sexual relations in marriage which are artificially contraceptive is intrincically evil, intentional or not. It is not licit to take medications whose primary function is to prevent conception, even for moral reasons, and then to engage in sexual relations.
The case of emergency contraceptive is problematic because, while it may be morally acceptable to prevent contraception, it is not when there is any substantial risk of killing an unborn child by preventing him from being implanted. To date there is no proof that any emergency contraceptive that can assure us it will not harm an unborn child.
Since the typical use of contraception is immoral, it is reasonable to oppose funding it wherever possible, unless the funding can be restricted to moral purposes.
MM,
You clearly have not read, or are erroneously recalling, Murray’s letter to Cushing. It contains repeated discussion of public and private morality.
The phrase “private morality” appears 6 times. The phrase “public morality” appears 12 times. The letter’s substance begins with the very words (after a brief intro): “1) The first argument is based on the differential character of law and morality and on the distinction between public and private morality. ”
Let’s play the quote game: “I think that the case for affirming contraception to be matter of private morality is sufficiently conclusive in our present circumstances. It is not merely that the practice is in fact widespread, or that so many people do not consider it to be wrong. The more decisive reason is that the practice, undertaken in the interests of “responsible parenthood,” has received official sanction by many religious groups within the community. It is difficult to see how the state can forbid, as contrary to public morality, a practice that numerous religious leaders approve as morally right. The stand taken by these religious groups may be lamentable from the Catholic moral point of view. But it is decisive from the point of view of law and jurisprudence, for which the norm of “generally accepted standards” is controlling.”
And now let’s substitute the word “contraception” for “abortion:
“I think that the case for affirming abortion to be matter of private morality is sufficiently conclusive in our present circumstances. It is not merely that the practice is in fact widespread, or that so many people do not consider it to be wrong. The more decisive reason is that the practice, undertaken in the interests of “responsible parenthood,” has received official sanction by many religious groups within the community. It is difficult to see how the state can forbid, as contrary to public morality, a practice that numerous religious leaders approve as morally right. The stand taken by these religious groups may be lamentable from the Catholic moral point of view. But it is decisive from the point of view of law and jurisprudence, for which the norm of “generally accepted standards” is controlling.”
Shall we keep going MM? This isn’t a fight you’ll even come close to winning. Murray was horrendously wrong, and his horrendously wrong arguments greatly contributed to the rise of contraception in this nation, and as a result the rise of abortion. And as a result, the death of 50,000,000 children.
His entire argument revolves around public/private morality, and different religious understandings of the truth. You clearly have not read, or are erroneously recalling, Murray’s letter to Cushing.
The only thing Catholic about the letter is that it was between a priest and a cardinal, because the content surely was not.
So to reiterate, supporting Murray’s position is supporting the protestant dichotomy between private and public morality, something you have railed against for some time now.
It isn’t that I dislike the nuance, or that I don’t understand the nuance, it’s that Murray is openly calling for the Protestant dichotomy.
Now, I know a few Protestant pastors that insist God wants me to have an SUV, God supports Israel in Gaza, God supports abortion, God support contraception, and God is an absolutist on capitalism and private property. Give me any of your other favorite issues, and I’ve got a pastor who supports the opposite. And as such, no change can be made, because you’re just trying to force your private moral beliefs on me publicly.
LCB,
You are being grossly uncharitable to a great theologian, the author of the Declartion on Religious Liberty. Would that the American church had the likes of him today, instead of the parade of one-note apologists. There is no “Protestant dichotomy” are anytyhing dualistic in Murray’s thought” all he is doing is trying to restrict the reach of coercive law. By not adequately distinguishing law from morality, you yourself are falling into a Protestant trap.
Let me repeat:
“1) The first argument is based on the differential character of law and morality and on the distinction between public and private morality.”
The entire essay then discuss the distinction of public and private morality, and how it relates to the law, and reaches the conclusion that truth can not be placed into law since some individuals might disagree with it on religious grounds. I highly encourage you to reread the letter, as it is steeped in the Protestant dichotomy that you so often write about.
After your recent string of posts concerning calls for coercive laws, you can’t possibly be trying to use Murray to restrict the reach of coercive law in relation to contraception.
MM, Let’s at least have some consistency here.
LCB,
Let me just ask you: do you think coercive law should be used to punish adultery? Do you think divorce should be made illegal? Would you have government ban all sexual acts that deliberately sunder the unitive from the procreative? If you (like most sane people) answer “no” to these questions, it is not because you deny the immorality of these particular acts, but because you do not see it practical to use the law against them. They are acts of “private morality”. This is Murray’s core argument, including in the quoted passages you provide from his letter.
MM asks, “do you think coercive law should be used to punish adultery?”
I reply: Yes. Adultery was once a criminal activity, and should be again. Further, civil recourse should be me permissive in these situations.
MM asks, “Do you think divorce should be made illegal?”
I reply: No-fault divorces should be done away with.
MM asks, “Would you have government ban all sexual acts that deliberately sunder the unitive from the procreative?”
I reply: I have not previously thought about this one, but my instincts would support a return of anti-sodomy laws.
MM writes, “If you (like most sane people)…”
I reply: Suggesting that I lack sanity for supporting common sense and objectively superior measures, laws, and practices is unneeded and unhelpful.
MM writes, “…it is not because you deny the immorality of these particular acts, but because you do not see it practical to use the law against them.”
I reply: On the contrary, I see significant practical application of the law in these situations.
MM,
Do you believe that the common good exists? You speak of it often. I ask this very seriously.
1) Does adultrey impact the common good?
2) Does divorce impact the common good?
3) Does contraception impact the common good?
4) Does abortion impact the common good?
Since all individuals within a society are negatively impacted by any negative impact upon the common good, and since we live in a community and have rights and duties in relation to each other, it is fitting that the law compel individuals to carry out their natural duties.
And I ask this question very seriously:
Should abortion, the taking of an innocent human life, be prohibited by law, through contraceptive chemical or surgical means?
It seems to me that abortion is a matter of private morality. Some religious groups say abortion is okay. So who are we to say abortion is wrong and enforce it through law? That is the logical consequence of Murray’s severely erroneous argument.
Let me just ask you: do you think coercive law should be used to punish adultery? Do you think divorce should be made illegal? Would you have government ban all sexual acts that deliberately sunder the unitive from the procreative?
I would answer yes to all three, though on the last one I would probably simply have the law express its disapproval without actually punishing the guilty. There is great utility in unenforced laws prohibiting despicable moral acts, like the laws struck down via Lawrence vs. Texas; and we ought to bring that kind of law back, good and hard. Any sane society would have many such laws.
But I suppose I am not like most “sane” people, at least when “sane” is taken to mean “has bought into the modern shibboleth”.
Zippy – What exactly is “The modern shibboleth”??
“and we ought to bring that kind of law back, good and hard.”
Snortgiggle. This may not be the best turn of phrase re: Lawrence v. Texas.
Alas, poor Zippy, running out of laws condemning people’s sex lives :(
What exactly is “The modern shibboleth”??
If you don’t know, you are in it over your head.
It might be worth nothing that from a natural law perspective, which is to say from a Catholic perspective, which is to say from the perspective of what is true, the law already prohibits every evil behavior. What the positive law does not do is punish every evil behavior; though, when operating properly, the law will always disadvantage the wicked in any conflict with the just.
I agree completely with Zippy’s distinction between natural and positive law, and the notion that positive law need not punish every evil behavior. Where I disagree is with the notion that there is utility in unenforced laws “prohibing despicable moral acts.” I think the right distinction to make is not between netrality and disappoval, but neutrality and approval. In other words, the positive law cannot sanction something as “good” or a “right” that is plainly not so according to the natural law. That does not mean cannot say nothing at all. For the reasons given by Murray, I would argue for a fairly narrow boundary for coercive law- I personally would not outlaw adultery, divorce, non-procreative sexuial activity, prostitution, marijuana use etc.
There is another angle to this that I just thought of. In some European circles, law is seen as a standard to attain, and it is well recognized that there can be circumstances when one does not meet this standard (think Italians and traffic laws!). In the United States, people think of the law in far more rigid terms- step marginally over the line, and your’re guilty (think jailing marijuana users). In a sense, Zippy’s point on the virtue of unenforced laws fits more natually with the European tradition (and by the way, that is how canon law operates)– though I’m not sure he would see it that way.
LCB:
On divorce, why only ban no-fault divorce (by the way, I agree with you here). But if you think Murray was fundamentally wrong, you need to ban all divorce.
Again, on adultery, what do you mean by “civil recourse should be permissive”?
On non-procreative sexual acts, I assume you understand that we are talking about a far wider range of actities than what two gay men might do together? I assume you understand that this would encompass much of what heterosxual couples do, and I’m not just talking about artificial contracception here. Just wanted to make sure I understand you right that you want to outlaw this activity– and if you do not, I would ask you why you draw the line wherever you do.
The answer to your question is yes, these activities do obviously affect the common good. Murray addressed that question, as I noted when he argued that the “common good” consequences would be difficult to control by law, and anyway, using coercive law might backfire and cause other social ills. Do you really think the introduction of laws banning these activities would actually serve the common good? If so, I would advise you to consider the cases of Saudi Arabia and Taliban-era Afghanistan, where indeed, the law was geared towards punishing vice and promoting virtue. By the way, St. Thomas Aquinas used similar arguments to argue against the criminalization of prostitution- was he wrong too?
And stop trying to change the subject to abortion. Abortion is NOT an act of private morality; it affects the most basic of all rights, the right to life. If you think that Murray’s argument gets you to this point, I suggest you do not understand the nuances of his argument, and the nuances of the relationship between natural and positive law.
Where I disagree is with the notion that there is utility in unenforced laws “prohibing despicable moral acts.”
Well, part of that utility is cultural of course, but part of it comes up in things like civil suits. So it isn’t just a symbolic or cultural matter, but has concrete legal utility in terms of serving the common good.
In a sense, Zippy’s point on the virtue of unenforced laws fits more natually with the European tradition (and by the way, that is how canon law operates)– though I’m not sure he would see it that way.
No, I’m in agreement with you here. There is definitely a “you can’t legally sanction something without hanging transgressors” tendency which is, perhaps ironically, more pronounced within the common-law-centric traditions than in code-law-centric traditions. It is also doubtless exacerbated by the modern tendency to treat everything under a rubric of “equality”, and to relegate substantive judgments of what is right and wrong to a realm of private fancy.
MM,
The subject returns to abortion because Murray has laid, point by point, the foundation for abortion’s rise in our society. Current jurisprudence is very clear that abortion is a matter of privacy.
I. Murray suggests that contraception ought to be legal.
II. Chemical contraception functions as an abortifacient, killing unborn children.
III. If murray is right, then the murder of unborn children through chemical contraception ought to be legal.
I. Murder is a matter of public morality, and ought not to be legal.
II. Chemical contraception, which results in the death of unborn children, is a form of murder.
III. Therefore, the murder of unborn children through chemical contraception ought not to be legal.
As for contraception,
I. If Murray is right, then the murder of unborn children through chemical contraception ought to be legal.
II. But, the murder of unborn children through chemical contraception ought not to be legal.
III. Ergo, Murray can not be right. Chemical contraception ought not to be legal.
The problem is not that I fail to understand “nuances” of Murray’s argument. The problem is that Murray advanced a seriously erroneous argument.
It may be appropriate for non-abortafacient forms of contraception to be largely decriminalized (that is a legitimate and worthy debate), but the law’s silence on the matter implies consent. The law is still a teacher on matters of morality.
The law is still a teacher on matters of morality.
Exactly, which is just a part of why sodomy and contraception ought to be explicitly illegal under the positive law, even if that leaves wide open what enforcement is concomitant to their illegality.
Yes indeed they stone adulterers,kill gays and non virgins in “lovely” and oh so moral countries like Saudi Arabia – Morning Minion is right on with his sanity remark.
It would be interesting to know what the marital status and age of our in house troupe of Catholic Taliban is
- certainly ‘tough’ talk’ is cheap for those outside the childbearing years.
Yes indeed they stone adulterers,kill gays and non virgins in “lovely” and oh so moral countries like Saudi Arabia…
And there is absolutely no difference between saying that there ought to be an unenforced law against sodomy and saying that sodomites should be stoned. Indeed, saying that shoplifting should be illegal is tantamount to advocating chopping off the hands of thieves.
It would be interesting to know what the marital status and age of our in house troupe of Catholic Taliban is
Some day perhaps God will clue you into what talk I have walked, with the help of His grace.