Are politically liberal Catholics happy with the Pope's new encyclical?

[qui_est_ce]

Christ established a Church, not a political party. One is no better than another, and either is led by men. Partisans now use the demonizing of one party to hold up another. There are no righteous political parties. All political parties are made by men. Neither is worthy of dividing the body of Christ over, as some would seem to have it in the name of partisanship.

We live in an imperfect world. We are IN this world, but not of it. We must ALWAY oppose evil. Even die to prevent evil’s error.

Our votes have consequences. We voted for the Democratic party, and now we have gay marriage, unlimited abortion, euthanasia. These are all evils which must be opposed. The current administration has named to the SCOTUS judges who support evil. To key positions in his cabinet, people who support evil. This could have been prevented had we chosen a different leader, different members to Congress.

“God has called us not to be successful, but to be faithful.” Mother Teresa.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why is America still at war if one side is for peace? And where did all the leftist antiwar protesters go? The side that says they are for peace is in the majority and has been able to do all that they want regardless of what the other side has said. They have also enjoyed two full years of holding a super majority. But they chose to keep America at war. See the following:

youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0&list=PL310711130876A845

.

That argument fails in my opinion, because the protesters protested the start of wars. Now, that we’re in the wars, we can’t just pull out. You didn’t respond to the criticisms, from those who started the wars, referencing the talks to pull out of the wars.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We live in an imperfect world. We are IN this world, but not of it. We must ALWAY oppose evil. Even die to prevent evil’s error.

Our votes have consequences. We voted for the Democratic party, and now we have gay marriage, unlimited abortion, euthanasia. These are all evils which must be opposed. The current administration has named to the SCOTUS judges who support evil. To key positions in his cabinet, people who support evil. This could have been prevented had we chosen a different leader, different members to Congress.

“God has called us not to be successful, but to be faithful.” Mother Teresa.

We ALWAYS oppose evil, except when it’s a ‘little’ evil? Is it acceptable to do a little evil so that good may come from it? No, that’s hypocrisy and the Church doesn’t teach hypocrisy.

Then look, is either party completely against abortions, euthanasia, etc? No, There is no righteousness from a political party.

 

[qui_est_ce]

That argument fails in my opinion, because the protesters protested the start of wars. Now, that we’re in the wars, we can’t just pull out. You didn’t respond to the criticisms, from those who started the wars, referencing the talks to pull out of the wars.

The current wars were approved by Congress, including the Dems. The Dems in Congress are now against the wars and campaigning on it. Has anything been done to stop the current wars? By your account, it’s not possible, and I agree. Never-the-less Obama made a lot of promises he didn’t keep. He’s also involved himself in Egypt and Syria. We should have learned our lesson from Iraq war.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The current wars were approved by Congress, including the Dems. The Dems in Congress are now against the wars and campaigning on it. Has anything been done to stop the current wars? By your account, it’s not possible, and I agree. Never-the-less Obama made a lot of promises he didn’t keep. He’s also involved himself in Egypt and Syria. We should have learned our lesson from Iraq war.

So, everyone participated, but one party stands above the other? It was politically expedient for the democrats to get behind the war, now the republicans criticize any effort to pull out, and at the same time criticize that we’re still there? It is possible to get out of the wars, but you can bet money it won’t go without criticism to politicize it.

The poster tried to tie the rich to one party, yet both parties spent millions and millions of dollars to have their candidate in the administration.

This president didn’t keep his promises, even though the other party fights any promises being kept; and the people are caught in the middle, except those who have bought into the righteous party thought. There are no righteous political parties. Period.

 

[qui_est_ce]

We ALWAYS oppose evil, except when it’s a ‘little’ evil? Is it acceptable to do a little evil so that good may come from it? No, that’s hypocrisy and the Church doesn’t teach hypocrisy.

Then look, is either party completely against abortions, euthanasia, etc? No, There is no righteousness from a political party.

I didn’t say support a little evil. I don’t look to political parties for righteousness.

Are you telling me I shouldn’t vote for a party because its members are not perfect?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I didn’t say support a little evil. I don’t look to political parties for righteousness.

Are you telling me I shouldn’t vote for a party because its members are not perfect?

It’s time we started holding politicians accountable as individuals, and not along partisan lines.

It’s time we stop the divisions among the body of Christ, because of partisan lines.

Look at the title of this thread. It seems more than a baiting thread, to demonize some Catholics or as an ad hominem strike at least, because of partisanship. The OP stated that was not the purpose, but the little cartoon seems to say otherwise. The Church doesn’t teach politics.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It’s time we started holding politicians accountable as individuals, and not along partisan lines.

It’s time we stop the divisions among the body of Christ, because of partisan lines.

Look at the title of this thread. It seems more than a baiting thread, to demonize some Catholics or as an ad hominem strike at least, because of partisanship. The OP stated that was not the purpose, but the little cartoon seems to say otherwise. The Church doesn’t teach politics.

Agreed.

But please tell me how I should vote, since there is no perfection.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Agreed.

But please tell me how I should vote, since there is no perfection.

That is something one has to seek for themselves. One must weigh everything from a candidate, who are all without perfection.

 

[qui_est_ce]

That is something one has to seek for themselves. One must weigh everything from a candidate, who are all without perfection.

So, I choose to go by the USCCB guidelines. I’m not saying the party I vote for is “God’s” party. Objectively, the candidates I voted for are the lesser of evils. Mitt Romney still allowed for abortion under rape, but that is better than unfettered abortion. Mitt Romney personally helps the poor and gives a lot of money to charitable causes. He wants to encourage more Americans to do the same through federal policy. I agree with that. Every Democrat in my state (like Catholic Claire McCaskill) is for abortion rights. Can’t vote for her, even if she claims to want to help the poor.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, I choose to go by the USCCB guidelines. I’m not saying the party I vote for is “God’s” party. Objectively, the candidates I voted for are the lesser of evils. Mitt Romney still allowed for abortion under rape, but that is better than unfettered abortion. Mitt Romney personally helps the poor and gives a lot of money to charitable causes. He wants to encourage more Americans to do the same through federal policy. I agree with that. Every Democrat in my state (like Catholic Claire McCaskill) is for abortion rights. Can’t vote for her, even if she claims to want to help the poor.

Mitt Romney once stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. Was this not a factor to be considered? We know, or have heard of, politicians who change views with political aspirations. If a politician is possibly misleading, we are not obligated to accept that ‘now he’s telling the truth!’ All of that is an after the fact consideration; after the primaries when people chose according to EVERY issue. Once chosen, they ‘humbly’ called on others to set the other issues aside, because of the important issues.

The men of the Church address ALL issues to affect the dignity of life from conception to natural death. They don’t approach single issues, one at a time.

Then the guidance of the Church was not unified on the interpretation of the guidelines. I’ve seen the guidance on gun controls challenged, even though no man of the Church opposed what was spoken by those representing them, because not all of the US bishops stood up and spoke in favor. On the issue of voting, the bishops were not as unified. I’m sorry to say, it appears to be a pick and choose authoritative according to the issue being discussed.

Now, what does all this political have to do with the encyclical from the Pope now? Nothing, nothing at all. There is a political divide among some Catholics, and others seem bent on widening that divide by using clear guidance from the Pope.

We individually accept, or reject, what the Holy Father teaches. No where does he, or the Church, teach that once we accept, or reject, we are to ‘judge’ those who do not agree. Yea, someone can dig through 2000 years of documents and pull out a snippet that seems to support their view. Why? Is it for spiritual, or political, advantage? Why question what some politically minded Catholics feel about a spiritual document, if it’s not motivated by political views itself? How does that show spiritual adherence?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Mitt Romney once stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy. Was this not a factor to be considered? We know, or have heard of, politicians who change views with political aspirations. If a politician is possibly misleading, we are not obligated to accept that ‘now he’s telling the truth!’ All of that is an after the fact consideration; after the primaries when people chose according to EVERY issue. Once chosen, they ‘humbly’ called on others to set the other issues aside, because of the important issues.

We also know of people who have change of hearts. Abby Johnson comes to mind.

If Mitt once said he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy but had a change of heart, should I still vote for Ted in an even race?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We also know of people who have change of hearts. Abby Johnson comes to mind.

If Mitt once said he was more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy but had a change of heart, should I still vote for Ted in an even race?

The question is, ‘would anyone be wrong in questioning whether it was a change of heart, or change of view according to the change in political aspiration?’ That question cannot be answered in this life.

Politicians, as in the primaries I made reference to, were chosen according to ALL issues. There were more, some of who match more Church teachings than the others.

Again, what has any of this to do with the spiritual guidance offered by the Holy Father? There was no political motivation behind his encyclical. His call was to all people, especially Catholics. The political motivation seems to come from those who use it as such.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions of political parties or figures are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.