Being Catholic and Voting

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatienceAndLove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Do you have a source for this?
Click to expand...
How many times is he going to tell this lie? He’s been rebutted again and again.

The Catholic Bishops approved the guide, and were going to fund the distribution, but their lawyers warned them it might violate the Campaign Finance law, and put the Church’s tax-exempt status at risk.

The Bishops do not forbid Catholics to read and follow it and have never recinded their original approval.
 
vern_humphrey said:
How many times is he going to tell this lie? He’s been rebutted again and again.

The Catholic Bishops approved the guide, and were going to fund the distribution, but their lawyers warned them it might violate the Campaign Finance law, and put the Church’s tax-exempt status at risk.

The Bishops do not forbid Catholics to read and follow it and have never recinded their original approval.
Click to expand...
That is what I thought. spirit meadow is not to be trusted.
 
vern_humphrey said:
So the Church is wrong when it says we have a duty to protect those in danger?
Click to expand...
The problem is the selective observance of duties. You are perfectly comfortable rejecting large portions of Christianity and Catholicism (ex. you propose that wealth is a meaningful measurement of virtue and assign power to men, not God). But picking and choosing has been identified by our pope as the gravest danger to our faith today.
vern_humphrey said:
Who’s “we?” Do you have someone else other than yourself who seeks the true path to “power?”
Click to expand...
I quoted, yet again, the Catholic Church. As we have demonstrated before, with your invented and grossly distorted quotes from then Cardinal Ratzinger, you appear to be more committed to a different ideology. However, given that this is a Catholic forum, I took the bold step of assuming that more than one person would be interested in what the Church, not you, have to say.
vern_humphrey said:
Voting pro-choice is evil?:whacky:
Click to expand...
No, devalueing human life is evil. Intrinsically so under the Catholic faith. You accept that abortion is legimate in cases, which is your right. But you missrepresent your beliefs as estabilished Church doctrine, which is false and a disservice to others. Further, you elevate an extremely narrow understanding of the evil of abortion above life in other forms and propose that it proves your own moral superiority to others - a distinctly non-Christian point of view, which undermines the Catholic beliefs regarding life.
vern_humphrey said:
You clearly have little understanding of politics.
Click to expand...
You are the one who finds yourself looking at a candidate who does not even honor the sacrament of marriage. And, I might add, pro life words coupled with a staff of lobbyists with ties to abortion.

The United States is the largest concentration of Christians in the history of man. There is no reason to compromise on principles, unless, of course, you value other things more than your faith.

This ties back to the theme of hypocrisy. I am sure that you would proudly proclaim yourself a supporter of US troops. But consider what we have learned in just the last 2 weeks. Hundreds of millions of dollars going to a 20 something fellow whose only claim to competency is a few good connections - all to provide unusable Chinese made ammunition to troops in Afghanistan. And, we now know that $3B (yes, billion with a B) in body armor contracts were awarded suspiciously, and the unqualified vendor was given repeated waivers to circumvent even rudimentary testing…

With all the words, things like honor, values, etc., one would think that ownership for the corrupt cesspool, complete with a system that lets American women be held captive and sexually brutalized without legal recourse, would stop somewhere. But loyalty to one’s cult, not country seems to be the norm these days.

Again, wanting an America of Blackwater, torture, rape and forced sodomy, etc. is your right. Proposing that it is inherently suprior Catholicism, against the protests of Rome, is truly “whacky”.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Simply because I find it absurd for anyone to renumber someone else’s priorities. They are your priorities and do not carry some gifted status simply because you uttered them. People are entitled by their very personhood to reach their own conclusions however much this dismays you.
Click to expand...
You could post your priority list and I could attempt to rearrange it for you, but I am afraid that would be impossible, since most of it would probably have to be eliminated.
SpiritMeadow said:
Again, that of course is your opinion. I do not follow the CAF list because I believe it is incorrect and has not been adopted by the USCCB as accurate either. In fact the USCCB forbids its use by parishes in this country.
Click to expand...
If you would like to be taken seriously, it would be advisable to try and post factual information once in awhile.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Sam says, "I think the most important aids to riding are, in order,
  1. Bridle.
  2. Bit.
  3. Stirrups."
And Fred replies, "I think the most important aids to riding are, in order,
  1. Bridle.
  2. Stirrups.
  3. Bit."
And SpiritMeadow, eyes flashing with indignation, says, “I find it absurd for anyone to renumber someone else’s priorities. They are your priorities and do not carry some gifted status simply because you uttered them. People are entitled by their very personhood to reach their own conclusions however much this dismays you”
:rotfl:
Click to expand...
Your attempts at humor at my expense are always welcome Vern. The fact that they seldom if ever relate to the real world or make any point, should be no deterrence from your continuing attemptst. Care to try again?
 
mapleoak said:
You could post your priority list and I could attempt to rearrange it for you, but I am afraid that would be impossible, since most of it would probably have to be eliminated.

If you would like to be taken seriously, it would be advisable to try and post factual information once in awhile.
Click to expand...
I have reviewed the particulars. Indeed I misspoke in a sense. Parishes are not forbidden per se to put forth the CAF list. They are encouraged to accept only lists propogated by their bishops, or a state convention of bishops or the USCCB itself. They refused to endorse the CAF list and while some may argue that this was not their desire, it seems it would have to be so, given that their recommendations are to say the least quite different that given by CAF. As far as I know, only one archdiocese has adopted the CAF and that is from St,. Louis, a notorious right-wing diocese.
 
mapleoak said:
If you would like to be taken seriously, it would be advisable to try and post factual information once in awhile.
Click to expand...
In this instance, the facts would appear to be on the side of the original post. When asked for its opinion, the USCCB noted that the CAF voters guide appears to be improperly partisan and recommend that it not be used.

It is also a reasonable assertion that the CAF guide is not a proper reflection of Catholic teaching. There is only one Vicar of Christ and the CAF guide is at significant odds with a publication from the Vatican on the responsibilities of Catholics in political life (prepared by our present Pope as Prefect, and approved by our last pope).

There is nothing to stop a bishop from approving the CAF guide’s use, but I would encourage all flocks using the CAF guide (rather it is approved for their parish or not) to open a dialog with their religious leadership to understand the seeming significant contradictions between Rome’s written position and CAF’s.

Bishops are not, as the Catechism makes clear, Vicars of the Pope. Their authority derives solely from Peter’s successor and, again as the Catechism instructs us, they best reflect Christ’s intentions and the inherent infallibility of the Church when they teach in agreement with Rome. So a compatible and coherent understanding with Rome is important.
 
SoCalRC said:
The problem is the selective observance of duties. You are perfectly comfortable rejecting large portions of Christianity and Catholicism (ex. you propose that wealth is a meaningful measurement of virtue and assign power to men, not God). But picking and choosing has been identified by our pope as the gravest danger to our faith today.

I quoted, yet again, the Catholic Church. As we have demonstrated before, with your invented and grossly distorted quotes from then Cardinal Ratzinger, you appear to be more committed to a different ideology. However, given that this is a Catholic forum, I took the bold step of assuming that more than one person would be interested in what the Church, not you, have to say.

No, devalueing human life is evil. Intrinsically so under the Catholic faith. You accept that abortion is legimate in cases, which is your right. But you missrepresent your beliefs as estabilished Church doctrine, which is false and a disservice to others. Further, you elevate an extremely narrow understanding of the evil of abortion above life in other forms and propose that it proves your own moral superiority to others - a distinctly non-Christian point of view, which undermines the Catholic beliefs regarding life.

You are the one who finds yourself looking at a candidate who does not even honor the sacrament of marriage. And, I might add, pro life words coupled with a staff of lobbyists with ties to abortion.

The United States is the largest concentration of Christians in the history of man. There is no reason to compromise on principles, unless, of course, you value other things more than your faith.

This ties back to the theme of hypocrisy. I am sure that you would proudly proclaim yourself a supporter of US troops. But consider what we have learned in just the last 2 weeks. Hundreds of millions of dollars going to a 20 something fellow whose only claim to competency is a few good connections - all to provide unusable Chinese made ammunition to troops in Afghanistan. And, we now know that $3B (yes, billion with a B) in body armor contracts were awarded suspiciously, and the unqualified vendor was given repeated waivers to circumvent even rudimentary testing…

With all the words, things like honor, values, etc., one would think that ownership for the corrupt cesspool, complete with a system that lets American women be held captive and sexually brutalized without legal recourse, would stop somewhere. But loyalty to one’s cult, not country seems to be the norm these days.

Again, wanting an America of Blackwater, torture, rape and forced sodomy, etc. is your right. Proposing that it is inherently suprior Catholicism, against the protests of Rome, is truly “whacky”.
Click to expand...
Wow!

Complete meltdown!
 
SoCalRC said:
In this instance, the facts would appear to be on the side of the original post. When asked for its opinion, the USCCB noted that the CAF voters guide appears to be improperly partisan and recommend that it not be used.
Click to expand...
How many times are you going to repeat this lie?

The USCCB noted nothing of the kind. Their lawyers advised that distribution of the voter’s guide might affect the Church’s tax-exempt status.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top