T
twb1621
Guest
God Bless you for your efforts… It is a major problem that many do not seem to realize. Peace to you and your friend.
- Status
O
Ockham
Guest
May God bless your efforts - keep at them. Sadly, there is no solid groud for the abortionist argument. It is state sanctioned murder.
F
Fiyero3305
Guest
My friend is next to me right now and she said she is officially pro-life now! She’s sad from learning it, and I’m sorry that I made her feel bad, but I am glad that she’s pro-life now. (reading this thread really helped her, thanks guys)
J
jaq
Guest
Our country prides itself in the seperation of Church and state. It is quite frustrating how self righteous individuals get caught up in the politics of abortion. The politics of abortion are too complicated for any of us to have a quick answer for it. The morals of abortion although complicated are not as complicated. For myself I believe they are wrong. It is my duty as a Christian to pray that the hearts of people change. It is also my duty to encourage others to consider other options beside abortion. On the other hand I will not stand in judgement of those who do it. That is for God. Unfortunately in our political system the issue of abortion has become a game piece on a board game. If one chooses only the issue of abortion and any topic related to it, as a means of alligning with a political party or supporting a leader, then one has not been fully educated about the other issues that face and affect us as Catholics and also the very babies, families, and individuals we want to save from this grotesque act. I have been preached to by well meaning fellow Catholics and also priests about the voting against abortion. However that is the only game piece the other party holds for me. For me the right to life goes beyond abortion. We have been fighting an unjust war where our soldiers have lost lives and millions of people in another country are affected. Millions of Americans including families who chose to give birth rather than have abortion do not have access to affordable health care. I could not support a president and administration just because they have the platform of right to life, and then ignore their dishonesty and distructive polices that have wasted resources and human life. For us to stop abortion we must change the hearts of people. We must educate. We must reach out to one another. We are not going to win on this by the law alone.
E
elts1956
Guest
No Catholic can aspire to a career in politics?? Many today have “aspired” and suceeded in their grasp of the golden ring. But what will the cost be to them in Faith and Truth? We have Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Casey Jr. and many others who have reached the highest rungs of the ladder of politics at the expense of (so far) their Catholic faith. It is not that the Church says Catholics cannot be politicians, but that politicians cannot be Catholic unless they support ALL of the teachings of the Church. The Church says nothing about Catholics being unable to be politicians.
E
elts1956
Guest
BillP;4873734
So clearly it is possible that a well-informed Catholic could indeed have voted for Obama (and before him Kerry) without sinning if he or she did so for other reasons, reasons that the individual Catholic considered proportionate. Uh Uh.:tsktsk::tsktsk:
“The Pope disagrees with both of you. It is not your place to tell other Catholics what they should and shouldn’t find to be proporotionate reasons. You would be right if all of the Bishops, not just a few, would give emphatic statements about intrinsic evils. Since they don’t, we as Catholic laity have the right to speak up for what is right and just. Just as it isn’t the pllace of others to dictate the terms of your personal conscience to you.”
Which Pope are you talking about? If it is Pope Benedict XVI, his last sentence was “if there are proportionate reasons.” But you failed to link this statement with what he said about the intrinsic evils of abortion and euthanasia which were the SUBJECTS of his topic. There are no proportionate issues to abortion and euthanasia. Unfortunately some people read what they want to read according to their own mind set and blinders.
Personal conscience is of great use in matters of PRUDENTIAL judgement. ie. death sentence, war, environment, economy etc.
Even reading the USCCB Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship:
The U.S. Bishops’ Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life (if one reads it correctly, not an easy thing to do) says:
Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—IS FALSE AND ILLUSORY IF THE RIGHT TO LIFE, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with MAXIMUM DETERMINATION./U] (Christifideles Laici, no. 38)
is simply, incorrect. That is not what the Church teaches. ??? Charity compels me to believe that you are simply misinformed. But it is a serious problem when people misrepresent (intentionally or unintentionally) the teaching of the Church to suit their own personal views and use that misrepresentation as a stick to accuse others of sin… INDEED A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM
If you really want to have this particular debate, kindly cite me some reliable references for your assertions and we can have a reasonable, rational debate from which we may both learn something.
My main point is about overzealous people who are either careless with their assertions IN ALL CHARITY, (at best) or willingly lie to advance their personal belief systems (at worst), so not expect me to support abortion in the debate, but I do strongly believe in carefully researching and telling the truth about complex situations.
Many chose to ignore the true teachings, which were made public, of such men and clergy as Chaput, Martini, Finn, Hermann and others because they weren’t “their” Bishop. I suppose if Christ had come back to Earth but wasn’t in their diocese, they wouldn’t have listened to Him either.
So clearly it is possible that a well-informed Catholic could indeed have voted for Obama (and before him Kerry) without sinning if he or she did so for other reasons, reasons that the individual Catholic considered proportionate. Uh Uh.:tsktsk::tsktsk:
“The Pope disagrees with both of you. It is not your place to tell other Catholics what they should and shouldn’t find to be proporotionate reasons. You would be right if all of the Bishops, not just a few, would give emphatic statements about intrinsic evils. Since they don’t, we as Catholic laity have the right to speak up for what is right and just. Just as it isn’t the pllace of others to dictate the terms of your personal conscience to you.”
Which Pope are you talking about? If it is Pope Benedict XVI, his last sentence was “if there are proportionate reasons.” But you failed to link this statement with what he said about the intrinsic evils of abortion and euthanasia which were the SUBJECTS of his topic. There are no proportionate issues to abortion and euthanasia. Unfortunately some people read what they want to read according to their own mind set and blinders.
Personal conscience is of great use in matters of PRUDENTIAL judgement. ie. death sentence, war, environment, economy etc.
Even reading the USCCB Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship:
The U.S. Bishops’ Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life (if one reads it correctly, not an easy thing to do) says:
- The Church’s teaching is clear that a good end does not justify an immoral means. As we all seek to advance the common good—by defending the inviolable sanctity of human life from the moment of conception until natural death,
- There are some things WE MUST NEVER DO, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called ]“INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTIONS”. THEY MUST ALWAYS BE REJECTED AND OPPOSED AND MUST NEVER BE SUPPORTED OR CONDONED.A PRIME EXAMPLE IS THE INTENTIONAL TAKING OF INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE, AS IN ABORTION AND EUTHANSIA./COLOR] In our nation,“abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignitybecause they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and thecondition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
- The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive. All the life issues are connected, for erosion of respect for the life of any individual or group in society necessarily diminishes respect for all life. The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education,and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means. PRUDENTIAL JUDGEMENT Catholics must seek the best ways to respond to these needs. As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught, “[Each of us] has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care,and, finally, the necessary social services” (Pacem in Terris, no. 11).
Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—IS FALSE AND ILLUSORY IF THE RIGHT TO LIFE, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with MAXIMUM DETERMINATION./U] (Christifideles Laici, no. 38)
is simply, incorrect. That is not what the Church teaches. ??? Charity compels me to believe that you are simply misinformed. But it is a serious problem when people misrepresent (intentionally or unintentionally) the teaching of the Church to suit their own personal views and use that misrepresentation as a stick to accuse others of sin… INDEED A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM
If you really want to have this particular debate, kindly cite me some reliable references for your assertions and we can have a reasonable, rational debate from which we may both learn something.
My main point is about overzealous people who are either careless with their assertions IN ALL CHARITY, (at best) or willingly lie to advance their personal belief systems (at worst), so not expect me to support abortion in the debate, but I do strongly believe in carefully researching and telling the truth about complex situations.
Many chose to ignore the true teachings, which were made public, of such men and clergy as Chaput, Martini, Finn, Hermann and others because they weren’t “their” Bishop. I suppose if Christ had come back to Earth but wasn’t in their diocese, they wouldn’t have listened to Him either.
E
elts1956
Guest
You want to know one of the biggest reasons abortion happens? Because it is convenient. It is legal and available in most places in the US and not only that, it’s funded by the government to a certain extent. Planned Parenthood funds abortions quite a lot in this country and provides them in certain locations. If a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want the baby, no problem! Get an abortion! The convenient accessibility of abortion also makes it easier for boyfriends, husbands, parents, and friends who think a woman doesn’t need a baby she’s carrying to pressure her into an abortion that she may not want.
If you really want to have this particular debate, kindly cite me some reliable references for your assertions and we can have a reasonable, rational debate from which we may both learn something.
My main point is about overzealous people who are either careless with their assertions (at best) or willingly lie to advance their personal belief systems (at worst), so not expect me to support abortion in the debate, but I do strongly believe in carefully researching and telling the truth about complex situations.
C
c659smith
Guest
Maybe this will help
Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. “Service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community” (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.
FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLES
These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.
But voting cannot be arbitrary. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals” (CPL 4). A citizen’s vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn’t let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.
Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. “Service of the common good require
FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLES
These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.
But voting cannot be arbitrary. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals” (CPL 4). A citizen’s vote most often means voting for a candidate who will be the one directly voting on laws or programs. But being one step removed from law-making doesn’t let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible, even indirectly.
- Abortion
The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it” (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.
- Euthanasia
Often disguised by the name “mercy killing,” euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.
- Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Human embryos are human beings. “Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo” (CRF 4b).
- Human Cloning
“Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union” (RHL I:6).
- Homosexual “Marriage”
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as “marriage” undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.
E
elts1956
Guest
E
elts1956
Guest
but I don’t understand your abreviations. Please decode, thanks. ie. UHP, RHL, EV, CPL. CCC I understand. If everyone else on the post knows the sources you are talking about, PM me.Great clear post. Thanks.
C
c659smith
Guest
ABBREVIATIONS
Great clear post. Thanks.
CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church
CPL Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life
CRF Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family
EV John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)
RHL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
T
twb1621
Guest
LIVE THE LIFE!
Does anyone really believe any politican would be promoting the idea of supporting legalization or the continued legalization of Abortion if the idea were not popular or regularaly accepted byt the vast majority?
**Catholics and all Christians are responsible for the success of bills such as these when they show support for the candidates. if firm in their beliefs, (the teachings of Christ), and If they showed unity against such issues, these would not be the issues they are. That is Politics. **
Finally, let us remember no Christian is to live as the Pharisees and if the choice comes down to the teachings of God or the popular choice of man, what do you think you should be supporting?
Does anyone really believe any politican would be promoting the idea of supporting legalization or the continued legalization of Abortion if the idea were not popular or regularaly accepted byt the vast majority?
**Catholics and all Christians are responsible for the success of bills such as these when they show support for the candidates. if firm in their beliefs, (the teachings of Christ), and If they showed unity against such issues, these would not be the issues they are. That is Politics. **
Finally, let us remember no Christian is to live as the Pharisees and if the choice comes down to the teachings of God or the popular choice of man, what do you think you should be supporting?
E
elts1956
Guest
Thanks c659smith. I wouldn’t have figured those out in a million years.
M
mapleoak
Guest
It is not out of self righteousness nor anything to do with self. It has to do with concern for innocent and helpless human beings who cannot speak for themselves.
Judgement of others who do what? Murder their children? The sin of murdering innocents is to be condemned.
As Catholics, we cannot compromise on issues which the Church defines as non-negotiable. We can educate ourselves all we want on the proposed Green Trees for Green Earth program, but if the president supports the slaughter of over a million babies including (as with our current president) those already born or in the process of being born, we ignore the Green Trees program. Innocent life comes first.
Name a current issue which surpasses in moral depravity, that of abortion.
Source for the claim that millions of Americans who did not kill their children do not have access to health care.
The death of millions upon millions of unborn is an intrinsic evil which does not admit of compromise. If a party is dishonest about Green Trees and wasted resources, it does not make it okay to support a party which promotes abortion.
We need laws to protect the unborn from people who believe it is okay to kill them.
M
mapleoak
Guest
One must be careful, as the five non-negotiable issues as defined by the Voter’s Guide is
not the authoritive teaching of the Church. It differs in several ways. For instance,
the voters guide put out by CA lists only five principles and further goes on to suggest that voters should then compromise on those five. Even on abortion itself. The USCCB put forth its statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”:
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
which links to the Vatican’s doctrinal note on voting:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…litica_en.html
Within this note is the reiteration of statements concerning the concept of “limiting the harm” in which John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae is quoted. In this document the Church spells out nine broad and overlapping categories** of principles** (not merely five succint issues) which all Catholics are called to uphold as “the essence of the moral law” and hold as non-negotiable under pain of mortal sin. It calls them “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”.
Here is a direct quote from that document:
which is then followed by the nine broad principles that all Catholics are called to uphold. The reduced list presented by the independent group (not the Catholic Church) putting out the Voter’s Guide are severely abridged forms of the non-negotiable principles set forth by the Vatican.
Regarding the principle of “limiting the harm” introduced in Evangelium Vitae, here is what the Vatican had to say in its doctrinal note:
I mention this because the voter’s guide to an unwary reader would have a ‘Serious Catholic’ believe they can compromise on the moral law ignoring the Church’s definition of nine broad principles all are required to uphold without exception rather reducing them to five succint issues, and of even those five ignore all save one. Then a ‘serious Catholic’ is led to believe that they may then even compromise on that solitary issue in support of a ‘lesser evil’, a concept not supported in Evangelium Vitae or the doctrinal note from the Vatican.
This is relevant because one has to be very cautious when moral requirements as spelled out specifically by the Vatican and reiterated by bishops (such as the USCCB) on numerous occasions are severly reduced in a compendium with critical information left out (examples, the statement of there being an abridged subset of principles called the five non-negotiable issues, the advice that even these five can be negotiated or ignored solely if another candidate supports more of them). It is all too easy for ‘serious’ Catholics to be mislead. We must be wary and always on guard.
In short, In no way, shape, or form can a Catholic in good conscience support a pro-choice candidate and remain in line with the teachings of the Church.
O
Ockham
Guest
Mapleoak, your link goes to the Vatican’s home page. Could you repair it please as I’m interested in reading the document in its entirety.
M
mapleoak
Guest
- Status