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.
pete_29 said:
You’re the one who said that to the Church, your opinion is what really matters.
Click to expand...
Yeah, when it comes to who I and everyone else choose to vote for. And not just my opinion; individual opinions.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
They’re MUCH better on social, economic, and foreign policy issues than the Republicans. They’re certainly far closer to Catholic teaching on those issues.
Click to expand...
Helloooo!! There’s more important issues! The church has said time and time again that abortion is far more important, and is one of the 5 non-negotiables. Not so much on economic issues.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Yeah, when it comes to whom I choose to vote for.
Click to expand...
*Father Serpa…
October 27, 2012, “Is it wrong for a Catholic to vote for Obama?”

All people have an obligation to inform their consciences regarding the moral choices they make in life. For Catholics to deliberately refuse to inform their consciences with the teachings of the Church or if they deliberately disobey the moral teaching of the Church, they can sin mortally if the choice is a serious one. But if people **sincerely follow their consciences, whether their consciences are well informed or through not fault of their own *they are not, they do not sin by acting on them.

You are rationalizing. From a mountain of evidence you take the anti-mountain pebble. Party politics runs deep. It appears you are in too deep. The only way any C(c)atholic can support such a blatantly pro-death platform is to believe they are not well informed. That would not appear to be the case.

**PS - Sorry, I just noticed you are agnostic… my bad… please convert, it’s only your eternal salvation… Jesus wants your soul more than… anything. **
 
superamazingman said:
Helloooo!! There’s more important issues! The church has said time and time again that abortion is far more important, and is one of the 5 non-negotiables. Not so much on economic issues.
Click to expand...
In the opinion of Catholic Answers. Of course, issues which the President can’t do anything about, regardless of his personal views, have little impact on my choice. Besides, Mitt Romney is as limp as a wet noodle on those “non-negotiables.” He doesn’t support banning abortion outright, he does support IVR and cloning, and he’s been flopping around like a fish out of water on gay marriage.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
In the opinion of Catholic Answers. Of course, issues which the President can’t do anything about, regardless of his personal views, has little impact on my choice. Besides, Mitt Romney is as limp as a wet noodle on those “non-negotiables.”
Click to expand...
Um, no. it’s much more than Catholic Answers. Look at what the majority of bishops, the guardians and propegators of the faith. See what they’re saying. Most are saying things along the lines of what Bishop Ricken of Green Bay, WI said: voting for a pro abortion candidate is a grave sin (ie, a mortal sin, now that you’re reading this).

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/10/a-bishop-on-voting-and-putting-your-soul-in-jeopardy/
 
superamazingman said:
Um, no. it’s much more than Catholic Answers. Look at what the majority of bishops, the guardians and propegators of the faith. See what they’re saying. Most are saying things along the lines of what Bishop Ricken of Green Bay, WI said: voting for a pro abortion candidate is a grave sin (ie, a mortal sin, now that you’re reading this).
Click to expand...
I see, that makes Romney ineligible. After all, he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. No negotiating. 😉
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I see, that makes Romney ineligible. After all, he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. No negotiating. 😉
Click to expand...
Do I seriously have to hand-hold you through all this? Clearly, Romney’s not ideal. It’s called the lesser of two evils, sir. That’s romney.
 
superamazingman said:
Do I seriously have to hand-hold you through all this? Clearly, Romney’s not ideal. It’s called the lesser of two evils, sir. That’s romney.
Click to expand...
Oh, but I thought it was non-negotiable. I keep forgetting that by non-negotiable you mean negotiable for Republicans. Silly me. Just remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil and such a dichotomy is an affront to Catholic teaching.

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
  • Cardinal Ratzinger
Emphasis mine. So, you see, just because a candidate is “pro-abortion” doesn’t mean he or she must be written off. This is where other issues come into play; namely social, economic, and foreign issues. Any Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama despite what some members around here would like them to believe. I certainly cannot vote for a Romney/Ryan ticket after their demonstration of disdain for the poor, stated refusal to provide humanitarian aid unless there’s some selfish motive behind it that benefits the US, or their desire to rob the poor to give to the rich.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Oh, but I thought it was non-negotiable. I keep forgetting that by non-negotiable you mean negotiable for Republicans. Silly me. Just remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil and such a dichotomy is an affront to Catholic teaching.

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
  • Cardinal Ratzinger
Emphasis mine. So, you see, just because a candidate is “pro-abortion” doesn’t mean he or she must be written off. This is where other issues come into play; namely social, economic, and foreign issues. Any Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama despite what some members around here would like them to believe. I certainly cannot vote for a Romney/Ryan ticket after their demonstration of disdain for the poor, stated refusal to provide humanitarian aid unless there’s some selfish motive behind it that benefits the US, or their desire to rob the poor to give to the rich.
Click to expand...
I don’t have time to look up other quotes to support my case at this time (I’m busy volunteering at my local Romney victory center 🙂 ), but let me point this out again:

If you’re dead before you leave the womb, it won’t matter how poor, sick, or without benefits you are. You’re dead.

Get that into your head.
 
superamazingman said:
If you’re dead before you leave the womb, it won’t matter how poor, sick, or without benefits you are. You’re dead. Get that into your head.
Click to expand...
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion but, as I pointed out, those so-called non-negotiables are actually non-binding according to the, now, Pope when other issues are in play. No one is obligated to write-off pro-choice candidates.
 
Oh yes…? Funny… That is not what I understand. Do we have the same Pope?:cool:
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion but, as I pointed out, those so-called non-negotiables are actually non-binding according to the, now, Pope when other issues are in play. No one is obligated to write-off pro-choice candidates.
Click to expand...
And there, everyone, is the crux of his argument. Objective fact is pointed out to him, and he calls it an ignorable opinion.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion but, as I pointed out, those so-called non-negotiables are actually non-binding according to the, now, Pope when other issues are in play. No one is obligated to write-off pro-choice candidates.
Click to expand...
You obviously know the teaching of the Church better than the strident Tea Party Catholics here.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Oh, but I thought it was non-negotiable. I keep forgetting that by non-negotiable you mean negotiable for Republicans. Silly me. Just remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil and such a dichotomy is an affront to Catholic teaching.

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
  • Cardinal Ratzinger
Emphasis mine. So, you see, just because a candidate is “pro-abortion” doesn’t mean he or she must be written off. This is where other issues come into play; namely social, economic, and foreign issues. Any Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama despite what some members around here would like them to believe. I certainly cannot vote for a Romney/Ryan ticket after their demonstration of disdain for the poor, stated refusal to provide humanitarian aid unless there’s some selfish motive behind it that benefits the US, or their desire to rob the poor to give to the rich.
Click to expand...
Precisely. But good luck trying to get that into the head of Tea Party Catholics, it won’t happen.
 
superamazingman said:
And there, everyone, is the crux of his argument. Objective fact is pointed out to him, and he calls it an ignorable opinion.
Click to expand...
The Pope said that you can vote for a pro-choice candidate so long as you’re not voting for him/her in support of that particular position so I’ll take his word for it. 😉
Al_Moritz said:
You obviously know the teaching of the Church better than the strident Tea Party Catholics here.
Click to expand...
People around here have the tendency not to see the forest for the trees and try to convince others that they have some religious obligation to only vote for Republicans because of the abortion issue. In fact, there’s not a thread goes by that someone doesn’t try to tie it into abortion. The Church doesn’t have such tunnel vision.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Oh, but I thought it was non-negotiable. I keep forgetting that by non-negotiable you mean negotiable for Republicans. Silly me. Just remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil and such a dichotomy is an affront to Catholic teaching.

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
  • Cardinal Ratzinger
Emphasis mine. So, you see, just because a candidate is “pro-abortion” doesn’t mean he or she must be written off. This is where other issues come into play; namely social, economic, and foreign issues. Any Catholic can in good conscience vote for Obama despite what some members around here would like them to believe. I certainly cannot vote for a Romney/Ryan ticket after their demonstration of disdain for the poor, stated refusal to provide humanitarian aid unless there’s some selfish motive behind it that benefits the US, or their desire to rob the poor to give to the rich.
Click to expand...
By the way, the USCCB voting guide is precisely in line with this:
  1. Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.
…]
  1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position *). In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
  2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons *). Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
Link:
usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

*) Compare with Ratzinger’s (the current Pope’s) statement:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
They’re MUCH better on social, economic, and foreign policy issues than the Republicans. They’re certainly far closer to Catholic teaching on those issues.

I think you’re confusing behaving aggressively while in a state of war and aggressively causing war. Two very different things. The Just War doctrine is quite clear and Romney’s views are incompatible with it. Then of course we have Ryan’s remarks on their views of humanitarian aid; completely inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Based on the last 4 years, you couldn’t be more wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top