Are there any Faithful Catholics voting for Pro Choice Candidates here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:yawn::yawn:
As I said, I don’t follow individual Bishops, I follow the universal Catholic Church, and as I am in the U.S. also the teachings of the US Bishops’ conference. If you or others prefer individual Bishops apart from the Magisterium, that’s fine, just not my choice as a Catholic. I believe all Bishops are successors to the Apostles, not just some.

Also, your post completely did not answer my question.
So the Pope says it is okay to vote for pro aborts? Or at least your interpretation of what he said leads you to think you can make up your own mind regarding Objective Truth. Carry on Digger, you are on your way to a dark dark journey.
 
In answer to that.:banghead::banghead:

How can one be so arrogant? The progressives just keep marching closer to the pit.
We can be grateful that they are coming out from behind the curtain - it’s all becoming more and more clear to even disinterested Americans what is going on. And those of us who HAVE been watching and have been alarmed from the beginning know even more about the agenda.

I wonder how many people are going to be interested to know that the president is spending 200 MILLION of our tax dollars A DAY on his trip to India? When so many Americans are losing their jobs, losing their homes, don’t know what will happen to their businesses, he takes 40 planes and 3000 people over to India. We are BROKE but not to him!!!:mad::mad:
 
No need for quotation marks. You have no right to judge anyone’s devotion to God.

And when you are an unemployed person with a family and have a pro-choice candidate who has the policies that will give you a job vs. a pro-life candidate who will do nothing to help you in your situation, you’d vote for the pro-choice candidate. Voters can’t always get exactly what they want unless they run for office themselves.
That is not consistent with Catholic conscious and values. Life trumps all. Without life there would be no jobs in the first place. There needs to be life in order for people to actually work. You trump life, and you trump all the other issues.

Like how Obama increased so many jobs for us??

Democrats doesn’t = more jobs. Obama should have obviously been an example of this. People like Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, interest rates, and the general economy effect how many jobs there are. Obama actually put in policies that hurt foreign trade.
 
The government isn’t responsible for creating jobs, they’re responsible for putting measures in place to ensure that we have economic stability, which allows for businesses to hire more. What does this have to do with voting for pro-choice candidates?
 
The government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.

For some on this forum, that’s just fine, as long as they are on the receiving end. :mad:
 
As I said, I don’t follow individual Bishops, I follow the universal Catholic Church, and as I am in the U.S. also the teachings of the US Bishops’ conference. If you or others prefer individual Bishops apart from the Magisterium, that’s fine, just not my choice as a Catholic. I believe all Bishops are successors to the Apostles, not just some.

Also, your post completely did not answer my question.
So, as I understand it, you do not have Faith in those , traditional teachers of the TRUTHS of the Church who teach very vocally regarding supporting a Culture of Life against a culture of Death? You have faith only in those progressive Bishops who take their beliefs along the likes of Curren and others like him.

By the way, my post was taken from the USCCB you know, the Magisterium? writings regarding LIVING the Gospel of Life written by Pope John Paul II. So unless statements are obscure enough for you to make what you want of them, you don’t accept them.

As to your question about any political candidate supporting ALL of Pro Life issues as the Catholic Church does, I will have to say no, but there are some who uphold more than others. We are told to vote in such as way that evil is not spread. Unfortunately, you still don’t have it straight about Intrinsic evil and the diffrence between Objective, or Abosolute Truth and issues of Prudential judgement do yout??? . :banghead:And you a graduate of Notre Dame. Well, I don’t understand that!!!
 
The government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.

For some on this forum, that’s just fine, as long as they are on the receiving end. :mad:
You are correct on both parts. It breaks my heart that people don’t realize either point.
 
Fine. Taking an human life. Abortion. Killing babies. Juggling chickens. Call it whatever you want too.

I’m just as pro-life as everyone else here, so don’t question my pro-life credentials. I’ve marched, given money to pro-life charities, did all that jazz. I just see the road to ending it in a different way than a few other posters here.
It should be very obvious to anyone who has been on this forum for some time, and has had the opportunity to participate in threads with you, that you are very pro-life and that you do a lot of work to promote pro-life. I think it says a lot about your character to acknowledge that there is more than just one way to accomplish the same goal and that there is nothing wrong with that. I completely understand that some are more dedicated, and more active, to the cause than others. And I also consider that some are more dedicated (and more active in their dedication) in one cause than another cause. We all have issues that we support or oppose, and some issues will be more important to some than others, and that’s a fact. But no matter what we hope to accomplish there isn’t only one way to work towards a goal. Thank you for being so understanding of those that do things differently than you do! I certainly appreciate you 🙂
 
I believe that the problem that many Catholics on this thread are facing is a problem with “filial discipleship.”

It comes through very loudly when people sit and try to interpret what the Church is teaching or demand that it be presented to them as a command from the Church. Which is always interesting, because often those who say, “Show me where the Church said this,” are the same people who would not follow it it anyway. The reason for making the demand, instead of extrapolating from what the Church is saying, is because they want a loophole. By saying, “You can’t show me the exact sentence, line and book,” what they are saying is, “I have a way out.”

St. Francis of Assisi always pointed his children to filial discipleship. We are the children of the Church. A mother does not have to prove that she is divinely correct to exert her authority as mother. Her motherhood is given to her by God. God does not make perfection a requirement for motherhood, except in Mary’s case.

Francis always pointed out that the Church is mother. When you have someone like Cardinal-designate Burke, who represents the highest court in the Church saying that you may not vote for a pro-choice candidate, he represents that mother to whom all children must bow.

The other part of this is the discipleship. Francis always taught us that we are not called to teach the Church. We are called to learn from the Church. We were born into the Church or joined her at some point in our life journey. She did not join us. Therefore, she does not have to take lessons from us. What we think is only as relevant to her as what a child thinks is relevant to a good mother. Good mother is only interested in ensuring that her child is thinking correctly. She is not interested in being taught by her child. Francis, who was a keen observer of nature and lover of all living things, often pointed to the lower animals and explained to the brothers and sisters that the lower animals were better Catholics than human beings were.

One day, he was watching a wild cat teaching her kittens how to hunt. He pointed out to the brothers, “That is how you should be in the presence of the Church. Notice that the kitten does not say to the mother, ‘let’s us do it this way.’ The kitten is attentive to the mother and tries to do what she does until he gets it right.” He went on to say, “If you expect to go to heaven, you will have to learn to set aside your idea of what is right or what is better and become like that kitten. Follow your mother without questioning her.”

In another adomnition he wrote about true and perfect obedience. He explained how true and perfect obedience was always filial and dsiciple. True obedience trusts that God is in control, just like a child trusts the parent. True obedience is always humble. It tries to understand what God is saying through the Church, rather than teach God and the Church why “I am right.” There is a desire to learn. This is the attitude of the disciple. He wants to learn.

There was a wonderful story of Francis and a brother walking through a town to preach. The brother kept asking, “Do we preach here?” Francis kept walking. The brother asked this several times. When the reached the other end of town the brother asked Francis what had just happened. Francis explained that they had just preached a sermon.

Most people focus on Francis’ words, “preach and when necessary use words,” which he never said. No Franciscan knows how people ever came up with this. Francis taught it, but never said it. He taught by showing. But we often fail to observe the brother. He is very important in this story. He is was we call a filial disciple. He is a child who is learning. He does not understand where Francis is leading, but he goes along and observes. Who knows. It may have been this very brother who made up that little phrase, "Preach always . . . " We know one thing about these holy men. They learned by being children. For many Catholics, this is a very difficult attitude to assume and yet, it is a very ascetical attitude. It has led many become saints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Thanks for asking, and I mean that seriously.

My plan to end all abortions is to get a whole bunch of one particular party in there. (we probably all know what party, but I’m not sure about the rules here-so, um, let’s just say the party that did quite well recently)

Once that party is the majority, they can nominate and confim judges that are pro-life (Alito, Scalia, type people) and hopefully, one day in the future, overturn Roe v Wade and other abortion legalizing case law.

Is it perfect? No, but it’s a hecuva lot better than the alternative of not voting. No matter what way you try to spin in, not voting is really spitting on the graves of everyone who ever fought and died for the country. Guess what-those dead people matter too.
That’s foolish thinking and shows an ignoranceof history. The Supreme court has a long history of reversing itself. One issue that they reversed themselves on is slavery. Another is women voting. So getting the judges changed won’t be a solution. You need a constitutional amendment or a specific law by Congress extending the constitutional right to life to the unborn.
 
Not to mention, overturning Roe v. Wade simply removes constitutional backing of abortion, and then states are left to decide. So you could live in one state that may still allow abortion to be legal, but the state next to you may have it very restricted, and the state anywhere else could have it completely banned.
 
Not to mention, overturning Roe v. Wade simply removes constitutional backing of abortion, and then states are left to decide. So you could live in one state that may still allow abortion to be legal, but the state next to you may have it very restricted, and the state anywhere else could have it completely banned.
So your not against the turning of Roe? hmmmmm. You realize that Roe v Wade gives immunity to abortion.

The overturning of ANY abortion law is a good thing. The more that is overturned the weaker it becomes and the less footing it has. Roe v Wade gives stability to abortion to continue its business. Take away Roe and they don’t have that stability anymore and are under a greater lens.
 
I didn’t say that. I was referring to what inkaneer said about providing a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. Amendments would be more difficult to reverse in my opinion and if one does study the constitution, they can see how it clearly outlines the protection of life.
 
I believe that the problem that many Catholics on this thread are facing is a problem with “filial discipleship.”

It comes through very loudly when people sit and try to interpret what the Church is teaching or demand that it be presented to them as a command from the Church. Which is always interesting, because often those who say, “Show me where the Church said this,” are the same people who would not follow it it anyway. The reason for making the demand, instead of extrapolating from what the Church is saying, is because they want a loophole. By saying, “You can’t show me the exact sentence, line and book,” what they are saying is, “I have a way out.”

St. Francis of Assisi always pointed his children to filial discipleship. We are the children of the Church. A mother does not have to prove that she is divinely correct to exert her authority as mother. Her motherhood is given to her by God. God does not make perfection a requirement for motherhood, except in Mary’s case.

Francis always pointed out that the Church is mother. When you have someone like Cardinal-designate Burke, who represents the highest court in the Church saying that you may not vote for a pro-choice candidate, he represents that mother to whom all children must bow.

The other part of this is the discipleship. Francis always taught us that we are not called to teach the Church. We are called to learn from the Church. We were born into the Church or joined her at some point in our life journey. She did not join us. Therefore, she does not have to take lessons from us. What we think is only as relevant to her as what a child thinks is relevant to a good mother. Good mother is only interested in ensuring that her child is thinking correctly. She is not interested in being taught by her child. Francis, who was a keen observer of nature and lover of all living things, often pointed to the lower animals and explained to the brothers and sisters that the lower animals were better Catholics than human beings were.

One day, he was watching a wild cat teaching her kittens how to hunt. He pointed out to the brothers, “That is how you should be in the presence of the Church. Notice that the kitten does not say to the mother, ‘let’s us do it this way.’ The kitten is attentive to the mother and tries to do what she does until he gets it right.” He went on to say, “If you expect to go to heaven, you will have to learn to set aside your idea of what is right or what is better and become like that kitten. Follow your mother without questioning her.”

In another adomnition he wrote about true and perfect obedience. He explained how true and perfect obedience was always filial and dsiciple. True obedience trusts that God is in control, just like a child trusts the parent. True obedience is always humble. It tries to understand what God is saying through the Church, rather than teach God and the Church why “I am right.” There is a desire to learn. This is the attitude of the disciple. He wants to learn.

There was a wonderful story of Francis and a brother walking through a town to preach. The brother kept asking, “Do we preach here?” Francis kept walking. The brother asked this several times. When the reached the other end of town the brother asked Francis what had just happened. Francis explained that they had just preached a sermon.

Most people focus on Francis’ words, “preach and when necessary use words,” which he never said. No Franciscan knows how people ever came up with this. Francis taught it, but never said it. He taught by showing. But we often fail to observe the brother. He is very important in this story. He is was we call a filial disciple. He is a child who is learning. He does not understand where Francis is leading, but he goes along and observes. Who knows. It may have been this very brother who made up that little phrase, "Preach always . . . " We know one thing about these holy men. They learned by being children. For many Catholics, this is a very difficult attitude to assume and yet, it is a very ascetical attitude. It has led many become saints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
AMEN
 
So your not against the turning of Roe? hmmmmm. You realize that Roe v Wade gives immunity to abortion.
though i oppose abortion, i have never been sure about what role the government ought to play in making it illegal. of course it ought not happen, but how should its prevention be enforced.

should abortion doctors be fined, imprisoned?

should women who have abortions be punished?what should the penalty be?

if a women tries to have an abortion, should she be imprisoned and otherwise physically restrained from harming her baby?
 
That’s foolish thinking and shows an ignoranceof history. The Supreme court has a long history of reversing itself. One issue that they reversed themselves on is slavery. Another is women voting. So getting the judges changed won’t be a solution. You need a constitutional amendment or a specific law by Congress extending the constitutional right to life to the unborn.
Foolish thinking? Ignorace of history? Jeez, your totally not invited to my birthday party. I love you too dear.

Your answer makes no sense, because I bascially said the same thing in my post that you said in your reply.

Um, judges do matter. 9 clones of Scalia WOULD chance the law while 9 clones of Kagan probably wouldn’t.

Calling people “ignorant” might be fun, but it shows a lack of manners, by the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top