Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
There is such a thing as righteous judgment. It would be a sin for us to tell you it is okay to support a man who champions abortion at every stage of life in the womb and outside the womb.
Click to expand...
That’s ok. The Church already took care of this matter. I can in all good conscience support a pro-abortion candidate (without embracing his abortion stance) if I find proportionate reasons for doing so. With Romney, I’d prefer to use the term ‘avalanche of reasons’ but that’s just my opinion.
 
Mickey said:
You need to read the gudelines about what the Church says about supporting candidates who champion abortion. Pronto! There is still time for you. The election is tomorrow. I will be praying that Christ changes your heart and mind.
Click to expand...
And I for you: to redirect your focus off other people’s consciences and make sure your choice is pleasing to God.
 
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.** Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.**
 
seekerz said:
Who’s disagreeing with the teachings of the Church? Oh, you mean the people ready to condemn others to hell for the deliberations of their informed consciences? Someone needs to tell those people they in grave error…
Click to expand...
No need to say others are condemning you to hell when they aren’t, any more than people on here would declare that all murderers or thieves go to hell. There is always penance and repentance.

Possibly some who support Obama don’t know that he promotes what the Church has said are intrinsic evils. But I suspect most do.

Possibly some who are complicit with his anti-life, anti-marriage programs and stances don’t think they are complicit in his evil deeds. But I suspect most do.

Everybody, from Martin Luther to Daniel Ortega at least say they act in accordance with “informed consciences”. And maybe they believe it. But “informed conscience” is not the same thing as acting in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Not hard to know them. But for some, hard to follow them.

If I believed the current administration cared anything for the poor, I would at least be conflicted, but I would still follow Church teachings as regards abortion and homosexual profanation of marriage. But knowing as I do that this administration has demonstrated that it cares nothing at all for the poor, there really isn’t any conflict.

Going after the goods of others just to do it is not, to me, motivating at all. Even Obama admits that his tax increases won’t do much for the deficit. Not hating rich people, I find his entire approach unappealing.
 
seekerz said:
That’s ok. The Church already took care of this matter. I can in all good conscience support a pro-abortion candidate (without embracing his abortion stance) if I find proportionate reasons for doing so. With Romney, I’d prefer to use the term ‘avalanche of reasons’ but that’s just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The key word here is “proportionate”. Most of us find nothing quite so horrendous as President Obama’s support of abortion and gay “marriage”. And there is nothing in Obama’s agenda that outweighs those issues, and nothing in Romney’s that counterbalances it.

Edit: Indeed, bishops, cardinals, and popes have all spoken of the fundamental nature of the right to life. All other rights are contingent upon the right to life. Without it, all other rights are meaningless. This puts abortion far above any other issue. So far, in fact, that it seems to me other issues are moot until this is resolved.
 
rlg94086 said:
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.** Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.**
Click to expand...
Thanks for that post. Great food for thought. My priest says that condemning a person to hell for their decisions of conscience places the ‘condemner’ in spiritual danger.
 
seekerz said:
And I for you: to redirect your focus off other people’s consciences and make sure your choice is pleasing to God.
Click to expand...
C’mon, all Mickey was trying to do was to perform one of the spiritual works of mercy. The third one, if my memory serves.
 
seekerz said:
Thanks for that post. Great food for thought. My priest says that condemning a person to hell for their decisions of conscience places the ‘condemner’ in spiritual danger.
Click to expand...
Except, of course, that he isn’t condemning you to hell. Why do you keep thinking that?
 
seekerz said:
Thanks for that post. Great food for thought. My priest says that condemning a person to hell for their decisions of conscience places the ‘condemner’ in spiritual danger.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The same priest who informs you that Catholics can vote pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-euthanasia, etc. and that your views are in line with Church teaching?
 
Ridgerunner said:
No need to say others are condemning you to hell when they aren’t, any more than people on here would declare that all murderers or thieves go to hell. There is always penance and repentance.

Possibly some who support Obama don’t know that he promotes what the Church has said are intrinsic evils. But I suspect most do.

Possibly some who are complicit with his anti-life, anti-marriage programs and stances don’t think they are complicit in his evil deeds. But I suspect most do.

Everybody, from Martin Luther to Daniel Ortega at least say they act in accordance with “informed consciences”. And maybe they believe it. But “informed conscience” is not the same thing as acting in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Not hard to know them. But for some, hard to follow them.

If I believed the current administration cared anything for the poor, I would at least be conflicted, but I would still follow Church teachings as regards abortion and homosexual profanation of marriage. But knowing as I do that this administration has demonstrated that it cares nothing at all for the poor, there really isn’t any conflict.

Going after the goods of others just to do it is not, to me, motivating at all. Even Obama admits that his tax increases won’t do much for the deficit. Not hating rich people, I find his entire approach unappealing.
Click to expand...
You are free to find him unappealing and I’m free to find Romney unappealing. Again I fail to see what the debate is. BTW, that ‘smell of sulphur’ comment was referring to which realm? Thank goodness I stand -]fearless/-] completely fearless, in the grace of God or my imagination might be running wild right now…
 
Ridgerunner said:
No need to say others are condemning you to hell when they aren’t, any more than people on here would declare that all murderers or thieves go to hell. There is always penance and repentance.

Possibly some who support Obama don’t know that he promotes what the Church has said are intrinsic evils. But I suspect most do.

Possibly some who are complicit with his anti-life, anti-marriage programs and stances don’t think they are complicit in his evil deeds. But I suspect most do.

Everybody, from Martin Luther to Daniel Ortega at least say they act in accordance with “informed consciences”. And maybe they believe it. But “informed conscience” is not the same thing as acting in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Not hard to know them. But for some, hard to follow them.

If I believed the current administration cared anything for the poor, I would at least be conflicted, but I would still follow Church teachings as regards abortion and homosexual profanation of marriage. But knowing as I do that this administration has demonstrated that it cares nothing at all for the poor, there really isn’t any conflict.

Going after the goods of others just to do it is not, to me, motivating at all. Even Obama admits that his tax increases won’t do much for the deficit. Not hating rich people, I find his entire approach unappealing.
Click to expand...
Thank you Ridge, your posts are always so well reasoned.

You make a good point that one cannot hide behind Obama’s purported concern for the poor. By every metric what he’s done has created MORE poverty, MORE food stamp recipients, MORE long term unemployed, MORE on disability, HIGHER gas prices and food prices.

Now someone please tell me about Obama’s great record with respect to serving the poor?

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Thank you Ridge, your posts are always so well reasoned.

You make a good point that one cannot hide behind Obama’s purported concern for the poor. By every metric what he’s done has created MORE poverty, MORE food stamp recipients, MORE long term unemployed, MORE on disability, HIGHER gas prices and food prices.

Now someone please tell me about Obama’s great record with respect to serving the poor?

Lisa
Click to expand...
Bush presided over the conditions (massive job loss from an economy in free fall), that increased the poor. What should have been Obama’s response, let the fittest survive? My faith says: whatsover you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me…
 
seekerz said:
You are free to find him unappealing and I’m free to find Romney unappealing. Again I fail to see what the debate is. BTW, that ‘smell of sulphur’ comment was referring to which realm? Thank goodness I stand -]fearless/-] completely fearless, in the grace of God or my imagination might be running wild right now…
Click to expand...
If you stand completely fearless in the grace of God, then your imagination is already running wild.
 
seekerz said:
Bush presided over the conditions (massive job loss from an economy in free fall), that increased the poor. What should have been Obama’s response, let the fittest survive? My faith says: whatsover you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me…
Click to expand...
Let’s take what you’ve written as true.

So who’s worse? Policies that lead to poverty, hunger, and a lower quality of life? Or expanding and supporting the murder of the most defenseless people of the US?
 
Ridgerunner said:
If you stand completely fearless in the grace of God, then your imagination is already running wild.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. I would never stay I stand completely fearless. I’m working out my salvation in fear and trembling…
 
rlg94086 said:
Indeed. The same priest who informs you that Catholics can vote pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-euthanasia, etc. and that your views are in line with Church teaching?
Click to expand...
You find something in Church teaching that contradicts his guidance? The Church is very clear that we can support a candidate whose views on the ‘non-negotiables’ are out of sync with ours IF we find proportionate reasons. With Mitt Romney, the first time I googled him I found more than enough reason to support Obama instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top