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.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There is great suspicion of a candidate who changes his position with his political aspirations. Romney once said, ‘he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy.’ People are not comfortable with the possibility of being pandered to as a bloc of voters.
Click to expand...
Fine. Ignore abortion. What about gay “marriage”, ESC, and religious liberty?
 
Suudy said:
Given the context of the thread (“anti-Obama letter”) and other posters, I’ve been trying to understand how anyone’s conscience can justify a vote for Obama. With other candidates, it is perhaps not so clear.
Click to expand...
It’s a mystery to me as well…I mean just look at the facts:

This administration rescinded the Mexico City policy, some estimates say the ACA will generate another billion annually for the abortion industry, the HHS mandate will trample upon my conscience, they would destroy the traditional family, the state is sponsoring a war against Catholics - the list goes on and on. We are to be a manifestation of our faith to others through our actions (like voting.) I mean, c’mon…all this talk about conscience is good and well, but when does common sense and the facts kick in vs rationalization. We are very very good about fooling ourselves, you know. 🤷
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There is great suspicion of a candidate who changes his position with his political aspirations. Romney once said, ‘he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy.’ People are not comfortable with the possibility of being pandered to as a bloc of voters.
Click to expand...
Then, of course, you would have great suspicions about Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist who turned prolife, Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in “Roe vs. Wade” who turned prolife, Scott Hahn, Abby Johnson and many others. Surely people are just as tired of being “pandered” to by them. Are you?

Of course, it’s also possible that every one of them had a true change of heart, including Romney. But if one is an Obama supporter, naturally, one would accept the change of heart of Nathanson, McCorvey, Hahan and Johnson, rejecting only that of Romney.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Then, of course, you would have great suspicions about Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist who turned prolife, Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in “Roe vs. Wade” who turned prolife, Scott Hahn, Abby Johnson and many others. Surely people are just as tired of being “pandered” to by them. Are you?

Of course, it’s also possible that every one of them had a true change of heart, including Romney. But if one is an Obama supporter, naturally, one would accept the change of heart of Nathanson, McCorvey, Hahan and Johnson, rejecting only that of Romney.
Click to expand...
An Obama supporter would have a really, really, really hard time accepting the change of Augustine of Hippo, especially on his teaching on the three goods of marriage.

Just so I do not have to make a seperate post, Augustine taught the three goods of marriage were fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life. His explanation or the sacrament of Matrimony has been continuously held by the Chuch ever since.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Then, of course, you would have great suspicions about Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist who turned prolife, Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in “Roe vs. Wade” who turned prolife, Scott Hahn, Abby Johnson and many others. Surely people are just as tired of being “pandered” to by them. Are you?

Of course, it’s also possible that every one of them had a true change of heart, including Romney. But if one is an Obama supporter, naturally, one would accept the change of heart of Nathanson, McCorvey, Hahan and Johnson, rejecting only that of Romney.
Click to expand...
Are any of them trying to get me to support them in a position of leadership over the country, with the power to affect many, many, issues? No.

They changed their view without expectation from anyone.
 
fix said:
So an innocent death due to an accident is morally equal to an innocent death due to murder?
Click to expand...
I said they were not targeted. Now, I’m being held to a more in depth definition, or comparison?

Was the Iraq war just? I know, 'we at liberty to disagree with the Pope(s) on that issue.; Two wars at once drained our economy, and many innocents lost their lives due to the wars. An innocents death is a travesty, in war, in domestic violence, or abortion. I would not try to measure it on the ‘curve’.
 
People, it’s great your consciences allow you to ‘trust’, but we cannot force others against their conscience.

This is where the one unified voice of the Church could clear up any misconceptions, if it was intended to be one way. They are the spiritual leader of us all. What reason is there to not correct millions in err, as others say they are?

For those who’ve asked, ‘why should they…?’ Because they are the spiritual leader of His flock and they have to go after every lost sheep and bring them back.
 
Trader said:
An Obama supporter would have a really, really, really hard time accepting the change of Augustine of Hippo, especially on his teaching on the three goods of marriage.

Just so I do not have to make a seperate post, Augustine taught the three goods of marriage were fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life. His explanation or the sacrament of Matrimony has been continuously held by the Chuch ever since.
Click to expand...
What about those that don’t support Obama, and don’t support Romney either?
 
He_Man said:
So they randomly abort and hope for the best? You fight more battles than the "actual’ Obama supporters.
Click to expand...
If that’s what you prefer to believe, I cannot change it. I have honestly tried to explain it, but only to have my words twisted against me. I don’t get it. I really don’t.

No one has said randomly abort and hope for the best.
 
wynnejj said:
Environmental issues are indeed important issues. The only problem with the environmental issue camp is its often close ties to the population control camp. And also its attempt to make inroads to a “new world order” world government controlling autonomous countries with “environmental tax penalties” through agencies that are elected how? The social justice anti-poverty camps have similar problems in their agendas. One would think that in order to fight the war on poverty, one would have to throw out the baby with that environmental waste water. Global family planning is tightly linked with all the social justice and environmental protection movements. And for supposed solidarity purposes, they deny the need for the principles of subsidiarity. Church & Family are under attack by the “family planning” wings of both the social justice and environmental protection movements.
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about environmental issues that could wipe out much, perhaps all, of life on earth, not about “the environmental issues” camp.

If that camp does have people into pop control or world domination, etc (whom I’ve never met, so where are they?), it is bec the so-called good people and pro-life people are just not involved in this mother of all pro-life issues. They are hypocrits (or at least naively unaware) and one cannot take their supposed “pro-life” stance very seriously.

Here’s the most brutal ad you’ll see this election: grist.org/politics/the-most-brutal-ad-youll-see-this-election/

It’s really too bad for the pro-life issues - assuming there might be a few people who actually do care about life out there.
 
There is no legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics with regard to abortion and euthanasia. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.

The ‘proportionate reasons’ is an essential qualifier. Hence, if there are only two candidates running for the office of president, senator, representative, governor, and so on, and both are pro-abortion, a Catholic may vote for one of them (1) as long as they do not personally agree (which would be formal cooperation in evil) and (2) they must choose the candidate who is more pro-life or less pro-abortion than his or her opponent.

In other words, Candidate A favors unrestricted abortions on demand at any time of pregnancy, and Candidate B only tolerates abortion in cases of rape, incest and when the life of mother is in jeopardy. Neither position conforms to the natural moral law or the magisterial teachings of the Church. Yet, the lesser of two evils can be tolerated when there is no alternative. Whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian or tea party, when the choice is between two candidates who are not 100 percent pro-life/anti-abortion, the one who is more pro-life and less ‘pro-choice’ must be selected over his or her opponent.

Even though there are many valid and important issues (like the economy, the environment, death penalty, war, health care, family and marriage rights), there is a hierarchy of values. The right to life trumps all other rights and privileges. The Declaration of Independence clearly states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Notice that the inalienable right to life is mentioned first, even before liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no ‘right’ to an abortion. Abortion is legal, but so was slavery and racial segregation at one time in America. There is no ‘right’ to contraception, either. Both abortion and contraception are legal in the United States, but they do not and should not be financed by the government since the taxpayers are the ones who pay the bills.

Bottom line is that no priest, deacon or bishop needs to say who to vote for in any election. We do not and should not mention any names or political parties. On the other hand, we must and are obliged to inform our people of their moral duty to use a well-formed conscience in choosing a candidate. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and the CDF made it crystal clear: Not all moral issues are of the same moral weight. The right to life is paramount; economic, environmental, military, and social issues are secondary, if not tertiary. When the choice is between a candidate who manifests his or her pro-abortion position and a candidate who professes to be pro-life, the moral obligation is to choose life by choosing the pro-life politician.

It is not that we are single-issue voters, but there is a proportion, a hierarchy of values in which the right to life outweighs all other concerns. The unjust killing of innocent lives is not eclipsed or overshadowed by any other concern. When there are two candidates whose stand on abortion is basically the same, then other issues can and must be brought into the equation to make a prudent vote. When Election Day comes this November, we should know well who is more pro-life and who is more ‘pro-choice.’ Then our well-formed conscience should tell us to choose the former over the latter.
Father John Trigilio Jr. (from EWTN)
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Are any of them trying to get me to support them in a position of leadership over the country, with the power to affect many, many, issues? No.

They changed their view without expectation from anyone.
Click to expand...
How do you know that? I mean, people like that get to be on talk shows, make money writing books, leading prolife groups, traveling to speaking engagements; the World of Sarah Palin, so to speak. And they are precisely engaged in affecting prolife issues, at least.

No, it’s only Romney that Obama supporters doubt. If he was running for sheriff of some county in Arkansas, they wouldn’t doubt him, but since he is running against Obama, well…that’s another story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top