1
1holycatholic
Guest
No, he did not say that.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It’s not underestimating when the US, and Israel both, have enough nukes to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, and the Iranians know this. While they may support individual suicide bombers, I don’t believe they would support the risk of losing their entire country and all that’s in it.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Would you care to elaborate?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Start another thread, present the documentation and we’ll see what was said exactly. If all those Catholics had strayed and erred, to risk separation from the Church and endanger their eternal salvation, surely the one voice of the Church would have spoken up to correct the errors and pull the flock back into communion with the Church.
Please stop trying to derail this thread. All your discussion is moot anyways, when you’re arguing against Catholics who are openly stating they are supporting a pro-life candidate like Ron Paul.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Why? The document is clear and unambiguous.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
You are derailing the thread by posting misleading comments regarding the teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II.Start another thread, present the documentation and we’ll see what was said exactly. If all those Catholics had strayed and erred, to risk separation from the Church and endanger their eternal salvation, surely the one voice of the Church would have spoken up to correct the errors and pull the flock back into communion with the Church.
Please stop trying to derail this thread. All your discussion is moot anyways, when you’re arguing against Catholics who are openly stating they are supporting a pro-life candidate like Ron Paul.
The fact that the thread is about Ron Paul doesn’t give you license to subvert the teaching of the Church.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in 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 stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/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.]
Just so.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
No you are derailing the thread arguing a point against Catholics for Ron Paul, which is the topic of this thread. We are promoting a pro-life candidate, so your argument is moot and off topic. I’ve said, start another thread and send me a pm and I’d be glad to discuss it with you. No one is misleading, or distorting. You’re using those false and inflammatory accusations to derail the thread.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
It doesn’t say that. To say, or even imply that it does is a malicious lie. Rich Olszewski posted the relevant section from the link I provided:What reason would you have for derailing this thread? If you’d like a response, start another thread and send me a pm. I would be glad to respond, even though we’ve been through this before, and I believe others would too, because the Bishops are discussing revisiting what they believe to be a vague document. Cardinal Ratzinger said a Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as the Catholic did not vote for that candidate precisely to support that Candidate’s position on abortion. So produce the definitive document and let’s review it together to investigate what I believe to be a false inflammatory accusation of ‘distortion’.
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in 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 stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/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.
You state that the only necessary criteria is that you disagree with the candidate’s position on abortion. That is patently untrue. Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II affirm that voting for a pro-abortion candidate because they are pro-abortion constitutes formal cooperation in evil. They also affirm that voting for a pro-abortion candidate when you disagree with their position on abortion constitutes material cooperation in evil and is permissible only in the “presence of proportionate reasons” a fact which you’ve omitted because it negates your assertion.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
You’re trying to change the subject because you’ve been called out for misrepresenting Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I am not misrepresenting, or trying to change the topic, and would appreciate it if you would accept me at my word and stop trying to derail this thread with inflammatory remarks. I have said I would gladly discuss it with you if you would start another thread. I’m interested in seeing you produce documents stating a Catholic is not allowed to write in another candidate.
Also, let me remind you that it’s against the policies of CAF to turn discussions into ‘personal’ discussions, as you’re doing now with the same repeated statements against me personally. This discussion is about a republican candidate, who is pro-life.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Done that…What reason would you have for derailing this thread? If you’d like a response, start another thread and send me a pm. I would be glad to respond, even though we’ve been through this before, and I believe others would too, because the Bishops are discussing revisiting what they believe to be a vague document. Cardinal Ratzinger said a Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as the Catholic did not vote for that candidate precisely to support that Candidate’s position on abortion. So produce the definitive document and let’s review it together to investigate what I believe to be a false inflammatory accusation of ‘distortion’.
That’s not your original demand, that’s a diversion.
The thread is about Ron Paul, but that doesn’t mean you have license to misrepresent the teaching of the Church regarding voting for pro-abortion politicians.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I am not a liar and have honestly spoken my interpretation honestly. I have not omitted anything. You’re remarks are false and inflammatory and I’ve asked you nicely to stop and start another thread. I have told you that the Bishops found ‘proportionate reasons’ vague, as well as other things. I have explained my reasoning asking why the Pope has not corrected those you claim to be in such error.
The topic of this thread is Catholics for Ron Paul. I plan on voting for him in the primaries and considering Rick Perry as a second choice, depending on his foreign policies. If I find myself in disagreement with him, I will more than likely write in a candidate of my choice.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
My remarks are not false. I have provided a link to Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement approved and promulgated by Pope John Paul II. My remarks reflect that document in it’s entirety and do not omit anything.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Why do you persist in making personal inflammatory remarks against my view and interpretation of documents, based on your interpretation, that even the bishops find vague and have discussed revisiting the faithful voters guide?
I am not misrepresenting. I am not lying. I am not trying to create a diversion. In fact, I am explaining my view of what I read, and what others have said. I have repeatedly requested you start another thread and send me a pm and said I would join the discussion.
D
duneman
Guest
[sign]I’m in !!![/sign]
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I’m not making personal inflammatory remarks. I’m pointing out that the document clearly and unambiguously states that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is permissible only if one disagrees with the candidate’s pro-abortion stand and in the presence of proportionate reasons. The requirement for the presence of proportionate reasons is the very next sentence in the document. It’s not hidden in a footnote.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTE
This thread is wandering. Please return to the topic of the original post.
This thread is wandering. Please return to the topic of the original post.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
You’ve said I ‘omitted’ when I provided a summarized answer of what the Cardinal said about voting for certain candidates. You’ve implied I was a ‘malicious liar’. You’ve stated that I misrepresented because you don’t agree with my view that the document was vague, as do some of the Bishops. I have gone through great lengths to explain myself and have done nothing wrong, or lied. I have also asked, repeatedly that you not make the discussion about me personally, stating I would gladly join a discussion with you if you started another thread as you’re derailing the topic of this thread. I’ve also said it seems like a moot point to argue when I’ve stated I support Ron Paul, who is pro-life, and am considering Rick Perry, depending on his foreign policy, as a second choice if Ron does not get the nomination. If I disagree with Perry’s foreign policies, I will more than likely write in Ron Paul.
P
pnewton
Guest
What now? Anyone who paraphrases the Holy Father is telling a malicious lie? Why are you assuming malice, instead as the Church teaches, the best? For that matter, why assume a lie instead of a mistake? I think the paraphrase was accurate and true, not a “calling out”. But I won’t discuss that here. There is enough derailing of this thread already. But a little more charity would be nice. I think when we are candidates who oppose abortion that we remember there is a continuum of opinions that candidates hold. It is not always a yes/no positition.
- Status