According to my anology, you could consider anything that you have an axe to grind for.
This applies to everyone else’s anologies. Now can we have some sort of understandable definition of what YOU mean by “anology”?
But until then, we will be kicking around words like “proportionality”, intrinsic", “well-formed conscious” and all the rest. Kicking them around with no real consenses as to actual meaning.:banghead:
This sad state of affairs will continue unless the USCCB can came up with something that is easy to understand. :sad_yes:
You seem to say that the Church could not speak specifically, endorsing a specific candidate, because of it’s tax exempt status and the implications on it’s social programs. If that were the case, the Church would be placing that tax exempt status and it’s social programs above the issue that so many Catholics say that nothing can be placed above. I don’t see that as a viable example from the Church. If the issue could have nothing above it and many Catholics risk separation from the Church, and their eternal salvation, as other Catholics say, surely the Church would give us the unified voice to correct those type errors.
The last election’s guide was vague, as the article(s) state. The bishops were divided themselves. I’ve already seen people reference democrat bishops for the upcoming election. It seems we have bishops with different political support, both sides using their interpretations of writings from, now, the Pope. Some laypersons choose a side according to their own political bias, others see division and don’t want to speak ill of either side and view the individual supports as strictly secular.
The Church, according to my understanding, is not a democracy. We have a single shepherd to guide us all, bishops included, yet he hasn’t spoken one way or the other on the last outcome of the election, as so many laypersons have. He is the one that can point out error, and corrections, with the single, and unified, voice, especially on something he wrote, since the bishops find themselves in disagreement.
Without the single voice, Catholics cannot be declared wrong, one way or the other, in a secular election, in my opinion. All of us live in an amalgamated world, mixing spiritual with secular. Not everyone can be correct, but which side is placing secular before spiritual. One side says there is only one issue that outweighs all other issues, the other believes all issues must be weighed. It is up to their well formed faith based consciences to make the correct decision, without the single unified instruction. If it was the Father that empowered Pilate over Christ, how can we say it is not the Father that empowers our leaders today, according to His will? We all pray for His will to be done, and He answers prayers, even if the answer is no for some. We should have faith that His will is being done.
As Catholics we need to look to Rome for an answer and stop the divisions in the Church, especially over the secular world and without authority granted among laypersons. I am somewhat surprised, and taken aback, at the calls for some to be separated from the Church over worldly things, especially since no one can say the Church is not where corrections can be made.
If we don’t hear the one unified voice we cannot speculate that it means one way or the other. It would appear that the Church is leaving such decisions to each individual’s well formed faith based conscience and His will. The Church teaches that it’s wrong to force someone against their conscience and by inaction it appears the Church gives example of not forcing.
