Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Good_News_1]

If they were as socialist as you guys like to pretend, single payer for one thing would not have been taken off the table. And we certainly would have gotten at the barest minimum a public option.

You just don’t understand history. Democrats are incrementalists, and socialists. They have been pushing a socialist agenda since Teddy Roosevelt, maybe before. They are in it for the long haul. In fact, they understand that pushing too hard will uncover their long terms plans, so they will often opt for what appears to be a very pro-capitalist, or at least not overtly anti-capitialist, policy, knowing that they can expand it later, in ten or fifty or a hundred years. They are committed to your great-grandchildren living under socialist rule, as has been the case for generations.

No matter what current events show, always understand the deeper narrative. The narrative is the reality, and it extends over a hundred years, if not more.

 

[Suudy]

End of story

Oh, please.

Conscience is not, in and of itself, the sole rule. If it were, then you must excuse any evil if it were done according to one’s conscience. Was Hitler acting according to his conscience, and rightly so? If so, then I guess you are right, it is “End of story.”

CCC 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

You skipped the intervening paragraphs. Pay special attention to 1783:
1783 *Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. **A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

---

So it appears it is more than just obeying conscience. One must have an informed conscience. Conscience, in and of itself, is not enough. One must apply reason as well.
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

The formation of conscience is not something that is static. Our conscience must always be continually informed, and we must continually seek the truth. We cannot be content to sit on our conscience as it is now without any effort to conform that conscience to the divine will.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55
When one considers how their conscience informs them, one must always consider whether it conforms to the divine will. If not, then why not? If not, how do I make it so? I would question a conscience that leads me to support politicians that support the slaughter of innocent, unborn children. Does such a conscience conform to the divine will?

**1786** Faced with a moral choice, conscience can  make either a right judgment **in accordance with reason and the divine  law** or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

Note here that any decision made from conscience may be right or wrong in judgment. And that only a right judgment is “in accordance with reason and the divine law.” Note the key word: reason. Conscience, by itself, is not a guide.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. **But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. **
Regardless of the difficulty of any such decision, one must always try to align one’s conscience to God’s will. Sorry, but I fail to see how the support of pro-abortion politicians is aligned with God’s will.

The final point is twofold: 1) the right application of conscience presupposes a well formed conscience, and 2) conscience is not the sole basis upon which we are to base our actions.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Oh, please.

Conscience is not, in and of itself, the sole rule. If it were, then you must excuse any evil if it were done according to one’s conscience. Was Hitler acting according to his conscience, and rightly so? If so, then I guess you are right, it is “End of story.”

You skipped the intervening paragraphs. Pay special attention to 1783:
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. **A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. **

So it appears it is more than just obeying conscience. One must have an informed conscience. Conscience, in and of itself, is not enough. One must apply reason as well.
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

The formation of conscience is not something that is static. Our conscience must always be continually informed, and we must continually seek the truth. We cannot be content to sit on our conscience as it is now without any effort to conform that conscience to the divine will.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55
When one considers how their conscience informs them, one must always consider whether it conforms to the divine will. If not, then why not? If not, how do I make it so? I would question a conscience that leads me to support politicians that support the slaughter of innocent, unborn children. Does such a conscience conform to the divine will?
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
Note here that any decision made from conscience may be right or wrong in judgment. And that only a right judgment is “in accordance with reason and the divine law.” Note the key word: reason. Conscience, by itself, is not a guide.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. **But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. **
Regardless of the difficulty of any such decision, one must always try to align one’s conscience to God’s will. Sorry, but I fail to see how the support of pro-abortion politicians is aligned with God’s will.

The final point is twofold: 1) the right application of conscience presupposes a well formed conscience, and 2) conscience is not the sole basis upon which we are to base our actions.

Dang you putting the entire relevant portion of the CCC into context rather than cherry picking the parts that you like.

 

[CMatt25]

You just don’t understand history. Democrats are incrementalists, and socialists. They have been pushing a socialist agenda since Teddy Roosevelt, maybe before. They are in it for the long haul. In fact, they understand that pushing too hard will uncover their long terms plans, so they will often opt for what appears to be a very pro-capitalist, or at least not overtly anti-capitialist, policy, knowing that they can expand it later, in ten or fifty or a hundred years. They are committed to your great-grandchildren living under socialist rule, as has been the case for generations.

No matter what current events show, always understand the deeper narrative. The narrative is the reality, and it extends over a hundred years, if not more.

Thanks for judging my historical understanding. Then you obviously have not a thing to worry about even if that were somehow some dark conspiracy plan. Because historically we keep going back and forth between the parties every so many cycles and historically often have divided govt so nothing shall forever be achieved in whatever case.

 

[CMatt25]

Didn’t skip a thing, Suudy. I inform my conscience with reason, Suddy. And part of my reasoning is I should not have blind faith and allow my brain to be indoctrinated against my reasoning. I am on a lifelong journey. And yet I still follow my informed conscience so as not to condemn myself. So take it up with the writers of the Catechism if you’re not happy with how they wrote it. Not with me, Suudy. Peace.

 

[Suudy]

Didn’t skip a thing, Suudy.

Then why didn’t you quote the intervening paragraphs. Note that when printed in full context, it casts a very different light than just the two snippets you posted. Conscience does not operate in a vacuum.

I inform my conscience with reason, Suddy. And part of my reasoning is I should not have blind faith and allow my brain to be indoctrinated against my reasoning.

Really? Then certainly you do not think conscience takes on a sole, authoritative role in decision making. You say you inform your conscience with reason, then reason should lead to to know that sometimes conscience is not accurate. When conscience is improperly formed, it can lead to bad judgments and thus bad actions.

As for “blind faith,” perhaps you missed the last sentence of CCC 1783:The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Do you consider adherence to authoritative teachings blind faith? Do you prefer your own judgment to authoritative teachings?

The point is that it isn’t “blind faith” to be obedient. One may not understand, but one is called to obedience to Church teaching. One certainly must make an effort to fully understand, and when one’s conscience contradicts the authoritative teachings of the Church, it should be reason enough question the formation of one’s conscience.

Conscience is not the sole, authoritative basis for judgment.

I am on a lifelong journey. And yet I still follow my informed conscience so as not to condemn myself. So take it up with the writers of the Catechism if you’re not happy with how they wrote it. Not with me, Suudy. Peace.

I have no qualms with how the Catechism is written. The issue is that some people think that their conscience is the sole rule. The idea that “well, I was just following my conscience” excuses all kinds of nasty behavior. For example, people who support an active homosexual lifestyle like to point to the conscience of those involved. After all, active homosexuals are only “following their conscience.” But the missing element is whether that conscience is well formed. When one’s conscience does not conform to God’s will, then it is not well formed and should not be the basis for judgment of right action.

However, to violate one’s conscience, assuming a well formed conscience, would be condemning. If, for example, I were to know that adultery was wrong–as a well formed conscience would tell me–and I were to act contrary to that, it would condemn me. But, if my conscience told me that adultery was not wrong, but I knew the authoritative teachings of the Church regarding adultery, would that excuse my behavior? Note that we are not talking about ignorance. If I had a deep gut feeling that there was nothing wrong with adultery, and I knew the Church teaching on adultery (i.e. I’m not ignorant), what should I do? Do I follow my conscience or do I follow the Church teaching? Even in this example we see that conscience cannot be the sole rule of right judgment.

So, how then is it “End of story” with regard to Black_Rose’s post? I’m not making a statement about Black_Rose’s actual conscience, but what if it were not properly formed? What if it were in fact mistaken, would it then be wrong to vote one’s conscience if it were contrary to God’s will? My point is not to say that Black_Rose is wrong, but only that Black_Rose might be wrong. And in such a light, it is not “End of story” despite your efforts to justify such a position from conscience.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I would assume that some left Germany before it got too far out of hand…But most stayed.

Darn, Beck, that’s all his fault too?

I find it interesting, because I can listen to Beck. I don’t very often, but I can. And I approve of his message, but I, and I would assume many people who listen to him as well, had my political opinions formed way before he became a primary target of the left.

It’s also interesting that people want to make him out to be a habitual liar, but can’t prove it.

 

[CMatt25]

Then why didn’t you quote the intervening paragraphs. Note that when printed in full context, it casts a very different light than just the two snippets you posted.

So, how then is it “End of story” with regard to Black_Rose’s post? I’m not making a statement about Black_Rose’s actual conscience, but what if it were not properly formed? What if it were in fact mistaken, would it then be wrong to vote one’s conscience if it were contrary to God’s will? My point is not to say that Black_Rose is wrong, but only that Black_Rose might be wrong. And in such a light, it is not “End of story” despite your efforts to justify such a position from conscience.

Because unless perhaps the writers of the Catechism meant to actually say we don’t have our own informed, reasoned consciences and must indoctrinate our brains with the politics of the Catholic Church today, the “intervening paragraphs” don’t change a thing in my reasoning as to what the paragraphs I quoted say. And sorry but my reasoning doesn’t see the “very different light” yours does. I am so fed up with the conservative politics espoused by the Church today, you wouldn’t believe. And since you as well, Suddi, might be wrong. That my friend is how it ends. God bless you and peace.

 

[ishii]

Ishii, then you’ll be happy to know under Roe my state not long ago had a vote on the limit of parental notification. We all had the opportunity to vote on it! And while it might not have to be either/or, the Church in Her elevaton of one issue to such an overwhelming degree in consideration in voting, has in my view harmed the other issues. Peace!

So how did you vote?

 

[ishii]

Politically, in the US, they are mutually exclusive issues. But an American conservative may argue that the Democrats do not sincerely care about the homeless, while a “liberal” (I do not identify with this term) may argue that Republicans do not care about abortion.

However, I feel no moral qualms about supporting the Democrats since my justification for supporting them is their position on abortion; I do it for other reasons. One can use the principle of “double effect” as a justification for this position, since I did not intend nor desire increased abortions relative to a situation where the Republicans would be in power. I oppose the Republican Party for one reason; I strongly believe in the welfare state meaning that I am vehemently opposed to neo-liberalism.

The official pro-life stance by the Republican Party is not enough to gravitate me to it, and support (through my act of voting) their other policies that I perceive to be absolutely fulsome. But pro-life policies, neo-liberalism, and fiscal conservatism are completely miscible, to borrow lexicon from chemistry. I would vote pro-life if such views are distilled from the mixture of other policies that I find abhorrent. I dislike the moral superiority assumed by conservative Catholics (defined by those who fervently support the Republican) when they lecture that it is obligatory to vote for Republicans because they would supposedly enact pro-life policies. To them, they oppose the supposed “socialism” of the Democratic Party, and therefore voting for the Republicans is rather easy choice with no dilemmas, since the Republican Party views are synchronized with both their social and economic positions. Because I ardently support left economic positions, I feel that I would betray my conscience if I vote Republican.

On the other hand, I would vote for someone such as Pat Buchanan who is both anti-immigration and a protectionist (and pro-life and a traditionalist conservative) over many Democrats (unless those Democrats also adopt Buchanan’s antiglobalization positions too).

(Also I would never vote Republican since they would not pay for antiemetics I would need to take after voting for them. )

Thank you Black Rose for adding so much clarity to this discussion. What you said above can be reduced to this simple fact: catholic Democrats hate Republicans more than they hate abortion. Or, to put it another way, they love leftist politics more than they love the unborn. Or to put it even another way, they are Democrats first (or leftists first) and catholics second.

Ishii

 

[Good_News_1]

Or to put it even another way, they are Democrats first (or leftists first) and catholics second.

Ishii

People spend two days a year voting, at most. I don’t think politics is a primary reflection of anyone’s commitment to their faith.

 

[ishii]

People spend two days a year voting, at most. I don’t think politics is a primary reflection of anyone’s commitment to their faith.

Sorry, I should have written, "when it comes to voting on the most important issue of our time, they are Democrats first, catholics second. Is that better?

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

People spend two days a year voting, at most. I don’t think politics is a primary reflection of anyone’s commitment to their faith.

The few minutes they spend in a voting booth echoes for a very long time.

 

[Good_News_1]

The few minutes they spend in a voting booth echoes for a very long time.

Most people don’t take voting very seriously.

It’s hard to say if they are wrong.

 

[Suudy]

Because unless perhaps the writers of the Catechism meant to actually say we don’t have our own informed, reasoned consciences and must indoctrinate our brains with the politics of the Catholic Church today,

That isn’t what I said at all. I didn’t even bring up politics. This is about the right use of conscience, not about the right position on political issues. The issues we’ve discussed in the past, including abortion, are not political issues. They are human rights issues.

And I never said that we “must indoctrinate our brains with the politics of the Catholic Church today.” What I said is that we must form our conscience using right reason and that our conscience must conform to “authoritative teachings” (the Catechism’s words, not mine). And it is an authoritative teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil. Anyone whose conscience tells them otherwise needs to consider whether their conscience is correctly formed.

the “intervening paragraphs” don’t change a thing in my reasoning as to what the paragraphs I quoted say.

It has everything to do with the context with which you posted. Your response was to Black_Rose, who indicated that he/she would betray her conscience were he/she to vote Republican. You then quoted a couple of paragraphs from the catechism in support of such a position. But your quotes left out the key phrases: “informed” and “well-formed”. It is not enough to appeal to conscience. One must appeal to informed and well-formed conscience when making judgments. That was completely missing from your response.

And it is critical point. For if Black_Rose’s conscience is not informed or well-formed with regard to voting Republican (and I’m not saying it is one way or the other), then such an action may be the wrong action. It is not the “End of story” when quoting a couple of paragraphs from the catechism.

And sorry but my reasoning doesn’t see the “very different light” yours does.

You may have had the full context in mind when you posted, thus it seemed quite correct. But the missing context in your post could give the reader the impression that the disposition of one’s conscience is irrelevant. But it is entirely relevant, which is what the full context reveals. So it was a “very different light” to the reader.

I am so fed up with the conservative politics espoused by the Church today, you wouldn’t believe.

The Church by her very nature is conservative. She is hard to change. And the very fact that the Church agrees with the politically conservative, especially on issues such as the right to life and the proper role of government, should not be concerning to you. It shouldn’t be concerning because it is the very same position that the Church has always held. But neither is the Church completely in line with the modern notion of conservatism, especially as embodied in the Republican party. But despite this difference, it is more in line with Republican ideals than with Democratic ones.

And that apparently bothers you severely. So much, in fact, that it seems you are placing more emphasis on your political loyalties than on your religious ones. You are more committed to the favorite ideals of your political leanings than the ones the Church emphasizes. One must wonder why you would put so much faith in an institution of man than in the Bride of Christ.

And since you as well, Suddi, might be wrong.

Indeed I might be wrong. And if I am, I will gladly eat crow. But I don’t think I am wrong on the one particular issue you think the Church is wrongly emphasizing: the right to life. I do not think I am wrong because of the authoritative teaching of the Church. The Church makes it very clear that the right to life is an issue of paramount importance. The philosophical and theological writings of the doctors of the Church talk about its importance. That seems pretty authoritative to me. And I would think that if my conscience told me it wasn’t important, I would have to question the disposition of my conscience on this issue.

 

[CMatt25]

So how did you vote?

Well Ishii, I’ve been trying to tell you I might not be the extremist you and Suudy may have thought I was on this. After prayer and contemplation and some reasoning I actually ended up voting in favor of the parental notification provision. Of course I also voted for gay unions as a civil rights issue to my reasoning. But we can’t always reason the same I suppose.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

People spend two days a year voting, at most. I don’t think politics is a primary reflection of anyone’s commitment to their faith.

I think with the average Democrat voter, it is a subconscious expression of their faith…their faith in government. They may claim to know Jesus, but when the rubber meets the road, they want their “free stuff” and will support the candidate who will promise to get them more of it. Case in point: Charles Rangel. 13 major ethics violations that could land him in jail, but back at home…he easily fends off any contention for “his seat”. Why, because Charlie bring home the bacon, that’s why. Charlie gets them stuff, so they vote for him. They don’t care where it comes from, they just wanna git theirs. Thank GOD the appathy of the average tax PRODUCING citizen has finally figured it out, which explains the Tea Party phenomenon.

 

[CMatt25]

Your response was to Black_Rose, who indicated that he/she would betray her conscience were he/she to vote Republican. You then quoted a couple of paragraphs from the catechism in support of such a position. But your quotes left out the key phrases: “informed” and “well-formed”. It is not enough to appeal to conscience. One must appeal to informed and well-formed conscience when making judgments. That was completely missing from your response.

And it is critical point. For if Black_Rose’s conscience is not informed or well-formed with regard to voting Republican (and I’m not saying it is one way or the other), then such an action may be the wrong action. The Church by her very nature is conservative. She is hard to change. And the very fact that the Church agrees with the politically conservative, especially on issues such as the right to life and the proper role of government, should not be concerning to you. It shouldn’t be concerning because it is the very same position that the Church has always held. But neither is the Church completely in line with the modern notion of conservatism, especially as embodied in the Republican party. But despite this difference, it is more in line with Republican ideals than with Democratic ones.

And that apparently bothers you severely. So much, in fact, that it seems you are placing more emphasis on your political loyalties than on your religious ones. You are more committed to the favorite ideals of your political leanings than the ones the Church emphasizes. One must wonder why you would put so much faith in an institution of man than in the Bride of Christ.

Indeed I might be wrong. And if I am, I will gladly eat crow. But I don’t think I am wrong on the one particular issue you think the Church is wrongly emphasizing: the right to life. I do not think I am wrong because of the authoritative teaching of the Church. The Church makes it very clear that the right to life is an issue of paramount importance. The philosophical and theological writings of the doctors of the Church talk about its importance. That seems pretty authoritative to me. And I would think that if my conscience told me it wasn’t important, I would have to question the disposition of my conscience on this issue.

If Black Rose’s informed conscience leads him/her to base his/her vote more on left-leaning economic policy as a means of advocating for those less fortuinate whom Jesus Himself advocated for, then so be it. And no my political leanings are based on my faith in Christ. Naturally I throw in some human reasoning though. And no.there was a time Catholics were much more inclined to vote Democratic. Until many became more fortunate economically and they elevated one issue to such importance vs all others. But anyway, peace.

 

[ishii]

Well Ishii, I’ve been trying to tell you I might not be the extremist you and Suudy may have thought I was on this. After prayer and contemplation and some reasoning I actually ended up voting in favor of the parental notification provision. Of course I also voted for gay unions as a civil rights issue to my reasoning. But we can’t always reason the same I suppose.

I am glad that after contemplating the issue, you voted for parental notification (which is a no-brainer - what did you have to contemplate?). I sincerely hope that you rethink your support for abortion rights. Its wrong. Its a bigger issue than the issue of how best to live up to the gospel requirement of helping the poor. The whole question of how to help the poor is one that people have debated for a long time. Should government do more? Maybe. Should we encourage more personal responsibility while expanding opportunities for the poor to get jobs? Maybe. Some combination of the two? Probably (I am not an extremist either). But the issue of how to help the poor is negotiable. The requirement is that we do help the poor. Abortion is different, non-negotiable. The requirement is that we protect life. Period. End of story. What kind of society kills its unborn for economic reasons? If the situation was reversed and it was the Democrat party that stood for life, and the Republican party that stood for abortion, I would vote Democrat because the right to life is the central issue. I am not saying go against your conscience. I am merely saying, with regard to abortion, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, “your conscience is asleep, wake it up.”

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

I am glad that after contemplating the issue, you voted for parental notification (which is a no-brainer - what did you have to contemplate?)

Well for one thing I had to contemplate the potential of some parents abusing their daughters once some were notified.