America's 'soul' at risk over immigration, Archbishop Gomez warns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank_Drebin said:
That’s great. Without anys specifics, we can say whatever we want and never be called to account for the details.

I too try to apply the Gospels to every aspect of my life, and will continue to do so. And we can both say so, since to claim so without specifics is to make the statement unchallengeable.

I suspect most people on this website try to do the same, and yet, they disagree on how to handle this issue and many others.
Click to expand...
I think the specifics of the Gospels I have used specifically speaks to the topic of the thread. I have given example of trying to apply qualifications to the Gospels, and how I can’t see the qualification as appropriate.

When I consider the Gospels, I then read excerpts from the Catechism, and look for statements from the men of the Church on a subject. I also pray. This is how I form a faith based conscience for myself. We all are obligated to act according to our faith formed consciences.
 
A quarter of persons deported from the U.S. are from intact families, he said. “In the name of enforcing our laws, now we are breaking up families.”
Click to expand...
Once again, the government gets it wrong. 🤷
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I think the specifics of the Gospels I have used specifically speaks to the topic of the thread. I have given example of trying to apply qualifications to the Gospels, and how I can’t see the qualification as appropriate.

When I consider the Gospels, I then read excerpts from the Catechism, and look for statements from the men of the Church on a subject. I also pray. This is how I form a faith based conscience for myself. We all are obligated to act according to our faith formed consciences.
Click to expand...
Again, that is great. I do the same, using the early Church fathers, Catholic Saints and theologians, and encyclicals to help form my conscience.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I understand, and still think that compromise could have been on the other side in the interest of those important issues. The lack of compromise was interpreted as a great importance on all issues. It was not a one sided affair, and never is in politics.

With all that being said, ‘I believe the republicans will take different views of issues like immigration.’ Sadly, there are some discussing moderation on other issues that we call important issues; more important than any other issue. These differences show political maneuvering over conviction, in my opinion. Again, it’s not one sided, all politicians do it. It should become obvious at some point in time.

We know the outcome of the election, and the numbers that voted which way. We can stand on all issues and see it repeated, or we can find middle ground on the lesser issues, in the interest of the important issues and see if the numbers remain the same.
Click to expand...
I have never countenanced the “the worse the better” approach. Hopefully a lot of people will have learned their lesson.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Catholics are also implicated by standing firm on the lesser issues.
Click to expand...
I remember being challenged for saying that by…ummm. I remember that very well.

It was expressed differently, of course. It was more "I could never vote for a Republican because of my take on social justice issues. Besides, I don’t think Romney is sincere in saying he opposes abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

And I remember cautioning…some…that doing so was a failure to opose obvious, blatant evil and (by then) direct oppression of the Church. But I was then told “my conscience tells me to do as I do, and conscience is determinative, so case closed.”

Possibly some who said things of that nature remember it now. 🙂
 
Frank_Drebin said:
Again, that is great. I do the same, using the early Church fathers, Catholic Saints and theologians, and encyclicals to help form my conscience.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry about it. Just repeat after me:

"My religion defines who I am. And I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.

With regard to immigration reform, I accept my church’s position on immigration reform. That’s the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others."
 
Elizabeth502 said:
They are indeed lesser. That was the point Ridgerunner correctly made, and the Church herself has said that, repeatedly.
Click to expand...
I have said there are non-negotiable issues and lesser issues. So, we all agree at on this point.

If those issues were truly ‘lesser’ to everyone, then why couldn’t compromises have been made on the lesser issues to advance the Catholic perspective on the important issues? Not all voters are believers, and don’t make the distinction between the issues. For those voters, wouldn’t the compromises have been prudent? Look at the numbers of how Hispanics voted. Would a compromise on the immigration issue have made a difference?

Holding to all issues seems to indicate that all issues were important.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I remember being challenged for saying that by…ummm. I remember that very well.

It was expressed differently, of course. It was more "I could never vote for a Republican because of my take on social justice issues. Besides, I don’t think Romney is sincere in saying he opposes abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

And I remember cautioning…some…that doing so was a failure to opose obvious, blatant evil and (by then) direct oppression of the Church. But I was then told “my conscience tells me to do as I do, and conscience is determinative, so case closed.”

Possibly some who said things of that nature remember it now. 🙂
Click to expand...
I remember it and I remember no compromises being offered. I remember other candidates being overlooked in the primaries, because of their views of the ‘lesser issues.’ I also remember Romney saying he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy, when it was politically expedient to do so. Let’s not forget the great 47% statement.

So, I followed my conscience and voted for neither of the two major players, and wrote in a pro-life candidate that never changed his stance. I also remember asking for some to produce statements from the Church that it wasn’t allowed; something that was never produced.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I remember it and I remember no compromises being offered. I remember other candidates being overlooked in the primaries, because of their views of the ‘lesser issues.’ I also remember Romney saying he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy, when it was politically expedient to do so. Let’s not forget the great 47% statement.

So, I followed my conscience and voted for neither of the two major players, and wrote in a pro-life candidate that never changed his stance. I also remember asking for some to produce statements from the Church that it wasn’t allowed; something that was never produced.
Click to expand...
Of course, at one point in both their careers, Romney was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy, because Ted Kennedy was opposed to abortion! He made a big change, as did his party.

And while you can certainly vote your conscience, what you ended up with was Obama.
 
JimG said:
Of course, at one point in both their careers, Romney was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy, because Ted Kennedy was opposed to abortion! He made a big change, as did his party.

And while you can certainly vote your conscience, what you ended up with was Obama.
Click to expand...
And those who wouldn’t ‘compromise’ on any of the lesser issues ended up with the same. 🤷

Since the election, many discussions have revealed the importance of those ‘lesser’ issues.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And those who wouldn’t ‘compromise’ on any of the lesser issues ended up with the same. 🤷

Since the election, many discussions have revealed the importance of those ‘lesser’ issues.
Click to expand...
By compromising on lesser issues, you mean that they would not select a compromise candidate in the primaries? The primaries have a twofold function for the voter-- trying to find a candidate with whom you can agree, and to find a candidate who can win against his opposite party opponent. It’s a matter of what’s possible. Perhaps you are simply saying that if everyone had voted for your compromise candidate, he would have won, and would now be president. But that’s no sure thing.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And those who wouldn’t ‘compromise’ on any of the lesser issues ended up with the same.
Click to expand...
So the “accidental” ends are justified by the deliberate means? When Catholic voters knew well what the choices meant, and how politicians far less supportive of abortion would be affected by votes for those unquestionably supportive of Abortion On Demand?
Since the election, many discussions have revealed the importance of those ‘lesser’ issues.
Click to expand...
Not by the Church it hasn’t. The Church has not changed her position one bit, after the election, because of the results of the election. She still maintains the primacy of Innocent Life theology (the unborn, those children dependent on a complementary pair of parents, etc.) over other manifestations of human life.

The Church has never placed social justice on an equal plane with Innocent Life, and to clarify that even further, JP2 made unambiguous statements about that priority.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
So the “accidental” ends are justified by the deliberate means? When Catholic voters knew well what the choices meant, and how politicians far less supportive of abortion would be affected by votes for those unquestionably supportive of Abortion On Demand?

Not by the Church it hasn’t. The Church has not changed her position one bit, after the election, because of the results of the election. She still maintains the primacy of Innocent Life theology (the unborn, those children dependent on a complementary pair of parents, etc.) over other manifestations of human life.

The Church has never placed social justice on an equal plane with Innocent Life, and to clarify that even further, JP2 made unambiguous statements about that priority.
Click to expand...
No, but was it ‘accidental?’ It appeared to be a consideration of all issues, without consideration of whether it would gain enough support from all voters to win the election. All issues were on the same level and protected by the primary choice, and then it became, ‘you can’t consider the lesser issues.’ It was an all or nothing gamble that gained nothing.
 
In an attempt to get back on specific topic, consider the republicans that have, since the election, called for a more immigration friendly language, and view. This has to be a response of how the numbers of the Hispanic vote went.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And those who wouldn’t ‘compromise’ on any of the lesser issues ended up with the same. 🤷

Since the election, many discussions have revealed the importance of those ‘lesser’ issues.
Click to expand...
And Obama is willing to compromise on what major issues like abortion and homosexual “marriage” and forcing Catholic institutions to provide coverage for abortifacients and contraceptives?

But I do agree that people who had an opportunity to oppose the known and blatant evils of the Obama regime, but didn’t do so for the sake of “lesser issues” or speculative doubts, share in the evils their failure to effectively oppose him are bringing about. I said that before the election, and I’ll say it now. Those who did so should own the responsibility for their action or inaction, and really have no business preaching new “compromises” with a regime that will not compromise on either greater or lesser issues.

Obama’s riposte to McCain in the bogus “negotiation” about Obamacare was demonstrative. He simply reminded McCain that McCain lost the election. I won, you lost, case closed.

Since this is about immigration, we all know that many conservatives do not oppose it, and never have. But they have also insisted on border enforcement first; the legitimacy of
which point even Obama tacitly concedes by pretending that he intends to do it after four pretty demonstrative years of not doing it. Against that background, who would not be skeptical and cautious about anything his government proposes?

To enter into compromises, there has to be at least some minimal amount of trust on the part of both sides. What was the last compromise the Repubs made? The tax increase in exchange for not having the government shut down. A little lopsided, but a compromise of sorts. It was “You compromise your principles to this extent and I won’t insist on punishing the public.” And no sooner was that deal made than Obama started all over again demanding the additional tax increases he proposed right at the beginning, and which he earlier purported to have “compromised”.

Why should anyone think he bargains in good faith? Tell us why we should, on matters great or small.
 
Ridgerunner said:
And Obama is willing to compromise on what major issues like abortion and homosexual “marriage” and forcing Catholic institutions to provide coverage for abortifacients and contraceptives?

But I do agree that people who had an opportunity to oppose the known and blatant evils of the Obama regime, but didn’t do so for the sake of “lesser issues” or speculative doubts, share in the evils their failure to effectively oppose him are bringing about. I said that before the election, and I’ll say it now. Those who did so should own the responsibility for their action or inaction, and really have no business preaching new “compromises” with a regime that will not compromise on either greater or lesser issues.

Obama’s riposte to McCain in the bogus “negotiation” about Obamacare was demonstrative. He simply reminded McCain that McCain lost the election. I won, you lost, case closed.

Since this is about immigration, we all know that many conservatives do not oppose it, and never have. But they have also insisted on border enforcement first; the legitimacy of
which point even Obama tacitly concedes by pretending that he intends to do it after four pretty demonstrative years of not doing it. Against that background, who would not be skeptical and cautious about anything his government proposes?

To enter into compromises, there has to be at least some minimal amount of trust on the part of both sides. What was the last compromise the Repubs made? The tax increase in exchange for not having the government shut down. A little lopsided, but a compromise of sorts. It was “You compromise your principles to this extent and I won’t insist on punishing the public.” And no sooner was that deal made than Obama started all over again demanding the additional tax increases he proposed right at the beginning, and which he earlier purported to have “compromised”.

Why should anyone think he bargains in good faith? Tell us why we should, on matters great or small.
Click to expand...
We know Obama won’t compromise, and that’s not what I’m saying at all. Republicans could have compromised on the lesser evils to defeat him, but couldn’t give on any lesser issue to garner more votes. They gambled, all or nothing. Now that’s changed, too late for this past election, but hopefully not for future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top