Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[seekerz]

I am not talking about “theologians.”

The bishops were clear. See the USCCB voter guide.

I have YET to hear a convincing case made that Obama would limit the intrinsic evil of abortion more than Romney. It is not possible given that Obama’s STATED POSITION was and is to SUPPORT abortion **on demand **(a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance - along with homosexual marriage by the way).

But that doesn’t mean one HAD to vote for Romney.

Nobody here (that I know of) has claimed that Obama would directly seek to limit abortion, but if one considers the secondary effects of both men’s policies it is likely that either one could have indirectly impacted abortion rates for the better or for the worse. Romney’s abortion statement taken in total leaves me with no impression that he was inclined to change the status quo, so what would make him better than Obama on that issue? According to my faith, words have zero validity unless they are backed by at least the intent to act in accordance.

Yes, the bishops were clear that one cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless there is a proportionate reason. They left that judgment to the individual voter. I don’t see the problem. No Catholic bishop that I have known in this life would ever command me to trust someone who in my judgment is untrustworthy. Ain’t gonna happen.

 

[ishii]

Are you talking about the same Romney who sought to quell the fears of pro-choice people as the election grew closer? The same Romney who changed his stances to whatever would get him elected? The Church says I must believe him even when what he stands for changes with the weather? Really? That same Church which gave me the spiritual and educational foundation that has served me so well these past decades?

We had a pro-choice president and a pro-whatever-best-suits-his-purpose president with other issues to consider than just their personal beliefs on abortion. Any theologian who declares that all Catholic consciences must come to the same conclusion about them is just not being realistic and IMO, is stepping outside his domain, in that one cannot dictate to a person who to trust or believe when there are VERY CLEAR issues with the truth.

Exactly

Exactly wrong, Seekerz and oldcelt. Here is where you are fundamentally wrong: We didn’t just have a “pro-choice” president in Obama. We had the most pro-abortion (rights) joined at the hip with abortion lobby NARAL and Planned Parenthood president in the history of this nation. He couldn’t see fit to vote for banning partial birth abortion! Do you understand what that means? And yet, you still voted for him.

Now as for Romney, you basically called him untrustworthy on the abortion issue. He clearly stated that he would pick supreme court justices in the mold of Scalia - and he had Robert Bork at his side to advise him on judicial picks. He also picked conservative pro-life Catholic Paul Ryan to be vice president. Finally, he was villified by all the abortion rights groups out there, and supported by the pro-life groups. So your analysis does not hold water. If you’re going to say that we didn’t know for sure if Romney was sincerely pro-life, I’d agree with you. But one thing was for sure: Obama’s pro-abortion rights stance.

In the end, Seekerz, you’re basically saying, "sure Obama was pro-abortion, but we we couldn’t trust Romney 100% on the issue so we opted for Obama’s 100% pro-abortion stance. Just a bunch of spin, Seekerz. In the end, you voted for the most pro-abortion (rights) president in history and are justifying that vote by focussing on Romney’s evolution on the issue, instead of Obama’s clear abortion rights record.

Ishii

 

[HansTrappist]

Nobody here (that I know of) has claimed that Obama would directly seek to limit abortion, but if one considers the secondary effects of both men’s policies it is likely that either one could have indirectly impacted abortion rates for the better or for the worse.

Secondary effects are just that - secondary. You can’t justify voting for someone who POSITIVELY supports abortion on demand by appealing to the secondary effects that would or would not follow from such an election. That is not only bad theology it is bad logic. And by the way, those secondary effects (the “economy”) don’t count as proportionate reasons when an intrinsic evil is involved.

Romney’s abortion statement taken in total leaves me with no impression that he was inclined to change the status quo, so what would make him better than Obama on that issue? According to my faith, words have zero validity unless they are backed by at least the intent to act in accordance.

You are correct that Romney was not 100% pro-life, but compared to Obama there is no comparison. That still doesn’t mean that one HAD to vote for Romney. But please don’t pretend that Obama is or was more pro-life than Romney. That is indefensbile given Obama’s STATED position and his RECORD.

Yes, the bishops were clear that one cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless there is a proportionate reason. They left that judgment to the individual voter.

The only proportionate reason for voting for a candidate who supported the intrinsic evil of abortion would have been the lessen the intrinsic evil. Voting for the candidate that supports the intrinsic evil on demand (Obama) would be ruled out by default. The USCCB’s voter guide touched on this point in paragraph 35:

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.

Abortion is a fundamental moral evil, so that rules out voting for someone who supports it on demand. That leaves one with Romney who had a STATED (we can argue over whether he really meant it, but at least on paper he meant it) position of lessening the intrinsic evil. But a Catholic did not HAVE to vote for Romney. They could have not voted, which paragraph 36 of the USCCB’s voter guide makes clear:

When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of** not voting **for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed **less likely **to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic
human goods.

Like I said before, I have YET to hear that Obama was “less likely” to advance abortion given that Obama supports abortion on demand. You can’t be the “candidate deemed less likley to advance such a morally flawed position” while at the same time you are the candidate supporting that morally flawed position ON DEMAND. It is logically impossible.

No Catholic bishop that I have known in this life would ever command me to trust someone who in my judgment is untrustworthy. Ain’t gonna happen.

Okay. Which bishop commanded anyone to vote for anyone. If you read the USCCB’s voter guide you would know that NOT voting was a perfectly legitimate option this election.

 

[Elizabeth502]

A single theologian does not craft Church doctrine.

Except that he is NOT crafting Church doctrine.
Has not crafted Church doctrine.
Is far too humble AND knowledgeable to pretend, let alone believe, he could craft Church doctrine, change Church doctrine, misinterpret Church doctrine (unlike many on this very forum and very thread).

This “single theologian” is among many (not single) authentic interpreters of Church documents because he has the education and training to do so. Many current priests have admitted receiving insufficient education in the foundations of moral doctrine and the interpretations of those, depending on their years and location in seminary. There have been significant articles about this, and broadcast interviews with such members of the clergy.

I do not trust just any diocesan priest until/unless I know from where his training originated, and unless it is demonstrable in his words, over time, that he does interpret accurately the documents from the Magisterium.

Colin Donovan is one among many such authentic interpreters.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree with you.

I don’t think there was anything equivocal about what the bishops said, although I wish they would have come right out and said which of the candidates most fully lessened the intrinsic evil of abortion.

It’s a self-protective reason. They don’t do so because of the likelihood of being accused of political advocacy from a tax-exempt institution. That is why the very careful reluctance not to state specific candidates’ names. However, they have all but done so, by restating the same principles which Colin Donovan, whose understanding mirrors that of the Catholic Bishops, has done, and by opposing the incorrect interpretations of voting principles which are apparent on this thread.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Exit polls skip Texas, missing key demographic data

Exit polls on Hispanics voting are not reliable, if they are missing Texas where there is a huge population of Hispanics in the exit poll results then the 27% number that voted for Romney is wrong

 

[JMJSHJ]

Nobody here (that I know of) has claimed that Obama would directly seek to limit abortion, but if one considers the secondary effects of both men’s policies it is likely that either one could have indirectly impacted abortion rates for the better or for the worse. Romney’s abortion statement taken in total leaves me with no impression that he was inclined to change the status quo, so what would make him better than Obama on that issue? According to my faith, words have zero validity unless they are backed by at least the intent to act in accordance.

Yes, the bishops were clear that one cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless there is a proportionate reason. They left that judgment to the individual voter. I don’t see the problem. No Catholic bishop that I have known in this life would ever command me to trust someone who in my judgment is untrustworthy. Ain’t gonna happen.

The weak argument that Romney would not change the status quo is even contradicted by Pres. Obama himself. How often during the campaign did he say that Roe Vs. Wade hang in the balance and criticize Romney for saying he would defund PP. Either Obama is lying or else you are wrong. Which is it?!!!

 

[Lapey]

Tigg, I have no way of knowing who is in hell or will be in hell. Only God shall know and understand hearts at the moment a heart takes its last beat. That’s why you have never seen me nor will you ever see me tell someone they are on their way to hell. It is not for me to judge. But yes of course it’s possible there will be Catholics in hell. I haven’t seen anyone argue otherwise here. But if there are Catholics in hell, I’m not convinced it will not be across party lines. And I believe Catholics in heaven will see both GOP voters there along with liberal and moderate Obama voters as well.

Matt, can you try to get past parties??? Try to have a conversation without throwing GOP or democrat Party around. We are CATHOLIC! And we should vote as such.

No one has condemned anyone to hell. Making a statement that there will be baptized Catholics in hell is not judgmental, it is a general statement which is I’m sure quite true. There will also be many other denominations and non faiths there. But this I will say, everyone in heaven will be catholic! No, I am not saying only Catholics will get to heaven so don’t even go there. What I am saying is God has a way to handle each and every one of us at death, He knows us, He created us. With God anything is possible. What is sure is that everyone who does enter heaven will be part of the one Body of Christ, this is the catholic, universal all encompassing Body of Christ.

 

[Lapey]

Exactly

I cannot argue with that. You trust Obama more than Romney, I don’t.

 

[Lapey]

I am not talking about “theologians.”

The bishops were clear. See the USCCB voter guide.

I have YET to hear a convincing case made that Obama would limit the intrinsic evil of abortion more than Romney. It is not possible given that Obama’s STATED POSITION was and is to SUPPORT abortion **on demand **(a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance - along with homosexual marriage by the way).

But that doesn’t mean one HAD to vote for Romney.

Sure you have. The argument is “if”. “If” a person is not voting for abortion then it is ok to vote for the pro-abortion candidate. That giant word “if” makes all the difference in the world.

“Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” – Paragraph 34

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.

This means that a voter has no need to worry about who believes what about abortion, if they are not voting on the abortion issue, same sex “marriage” issue, euthanasia issue, embryonic stem cell research issue, human cloning issue; none of the intrinsic evil issues matter because I don’t vote those issues. I can vote for whomever I feel will feed the poor better, or fix immigration, or you name the other issues.

I’m about done here, there are only a few here who loudly make there liberal democrat points, then accuse all of the posters who speak for Catholic teachings of being closed minded partisans. It is the silent majority who allow the few the soap box. We need to stand up and preach from the roof tops people! Guess what, if we don’t, who will……crickets.

There are hundreds of faithful Catholics looking at this and other threads, speak up people!

 

[Lapey]

Nobody here (that I know of) has claimed that Obama would directly seek to limit abortion, but if one considers the secondary effects of both men’s policies it is likely that either one could have indirectly impacted abortion rates for the better or for the worse. Romney’s abortion statement taken in total leaves me with no impression that he was inclined to change the status quo, so what would make him better than Obama on that issue? According to my faith, words have zero validity unless they are backed by at least the intent to act in accordance.

Yes, the bishops were clear that one cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless there is a proportionate reason. They left that judgment to the individual voter. I don’t see the problem. No Catholic bishop that I have known in this life would ever command me to trust someone who in my judgment is untrustworthy. Ain’t gonna happen.

I started to post, “horse hockey”. Felt that would be a little uncharitable, so I’ll post this; according to MSNBC, you are correct.

 

[seekerz]

Exactly wrong, Seekerz and oldcelt. Here is where you are fundamentally wrong: We didn’t just have a “pro-choice” president in Obama. We had the most pro-abortion (rights) joined at the hip with abortion lobby NARAL and Planned Parenthood president in the history of this nation. He couldn’t see fit to vote for banning partial birth abortion! Do you understand what that means? And yet, you still voted for him.

Now as for Romney, you basically called him untrustworthy on the abortion issue. He clearly stated that he would pick supreme court justices in the mold of Scalia - and he had Robert Bork at his side to advise him on judicial picks. He also picked conservative pro-life Catholic Paul Ryan to be vice president. Finally, he was villified by all the abortion rights groups out there, and supported by the pro-life groups. So your analysis does not hold water. If you’re going to say that we didn’t know for sure if Romney was sincerely pro-life, I’d agree with you. But one thing was for sure: Obama’s pro-abortion rights stance.

In the end, Seekerz, you’re basically saying, "sure Obama was pro-abortion, but we we couldn’t trust Romney 100% on the issue so we opted for Obama’s 100% pro-abortion stance. Just a bunch of spin, Seekerz. In the end, you voted for the most pro-abortion (rights) president in history and are justifying that vote by focussing on Romney’s evolution on the issue, instead of Obama’s clear abortion rights record.

Ishii

You have your opinion and I have mine. I do not criticize your choice as ‘wrong’ so why criticize mine? You see Romney as trustworthy and I see the exact opposite. I knew where Obama stood on abortion - I had no idea what principles Romney would compromise to get or stay in power. It seemed to all depend on the polls of the moment. Maybe he was better on the issue, maybe he wasn’t.

There’s no shame in agreeing to disagree. It is this insistence that one choice is evil and one choice is good (not referring to you personally, but the general trend) that I find disturbing. There is such thing as legitimate choice: chicken or turkey, bacon or cheese, Romney or Obama. Neither is perfect, the issues are many, and it’s up to us to choose.

What is the difficulty in respecting that?

 

[_Abyssinia]

The GOP reaching out to Latinos is about more than immigration

 

[Tigg]

I believe you’ve got that exactly right. Something about being so concerned about someone else’s faults that one’s own are neglected…

I was actually waiting for this…it happens every time, on every thread, when a defense of the faith is launched, but I think I’m finally beginning to understand.

 

[Tigg]

Flawed human conviction over a supernatural faith that would tell one they may support anti-life forces in the form of a presidential candidate, and individual judgment over the clear message of the entirety of the Church. It’s quite simple! Choose that which most closely aligns with your politics and search out those not beholding to any authentic theology who will confirm your choice, and above all – (this is most important) be absolutely convinced that religion must be segregated from civic life.

 

[Mickey]

I’m about done here, there are only a few here who loudly make there liberal democrat points, then accuse all of the posters who speak for Catholic teachings of being closed minded partisans. It is the silent majority who allow the few the soap box. We need to stand up and preach from the roof tops people! Guess what, if we don’t, who will……crickets.

There are hundreds of faithful Catholics looking at this and other threads, speak up people!

Your voice on this issue is much appreciated…please do not stop posting, Deacon. There are many more on this forum who agree with you as compared to those few who are opposed. You do not have to be a member of the Catholic Church to see that a vote for Obama…was a vote for abortion on demand, infanticide and homosexual “marriage.” Any argument to the contrary is merely an attempt to justify and soothe a nagging conscience. There was a clear consensus amongst Catholic bishops and priests advising their parishoners to vote for life…to vote for traditional marriage…to vote for religious freedoms. We know the candidate to which they were referring. Yes…there will be a few dissenting priests (and perhaps a bishop or two) who will oppose the consesus.

That is unfortunate…and God will judge them accordingly.

 

[Lapey]

Of course, the Pope said this to the bishops of Brazil in connection with voting there for abortion-supporting politicians, which many bishops in the U.S. said as well, with none contradicting him or the bishops who said we cannot vote for an abortion promoter.

“Dear brother bishops, to defend life we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, and we must refuse any compromise or ambiguity which might conform us to the world’s way of thinking,” the pope said Oct. 28 during a meeting with bishops from northeast Brazil.

Pope Benedict told the Brazilian bishops that while direct involvement in politics is the responsibility of the laity, “when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it, pastors have a serious duty to make moral judgments even in political matters.”

Certain actions and political policies, such as abortion and euthanasia, are “intrinsically evil and incompatible with human dignity” and cannot be justified for any reason, the pope said.

While some may claim they support abortion or euthanasia to defend the weak and the poor, “who is more helpless than an unborn child or a patient in a vegetative or terminal state?” he said.

“When political positions openly or covertly include plans to decriminalize abortion and euthanasia, the democratic ideal – which is truly democratic only when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person – is betrayed at its foundations,” Pope Benedict told the bishops.

But I realize those who, for political or personal goals of other kinds, support abortion-supporting politicians, will find ways to rationalize their way out of acknowledging the truth that’s right in front of them.

And so, the moral corruption continues to be sown. It’s possible, of course, that the 50% or so of Catholics who voted for Obama are in some manner invested in abortion anyway. Since abortion rates among Catholics are little or no different from that of non-Catholics, and since additional others would be complicit in those abortions (boyfriends, parents, etc) one may reasonably assume that some number of Catholic would vote for abortion even if it was the only issue.

But nevertheless, it’s wrong to sow confusion about where the Church really stands with it. That thing about the millstone and all.

catholiccourier.com/news/world-nation/pope-says-bishops-must-educate-faithful-to-vote-against-abortion/

I’m still looking for the text of the entire address to the bishops; here is a good article about it.

 

[seekerz]

I started to post, “horse hockey”. Felt that would be a little uncharitable, so I’ll post this; according to MSNBC, you are correct.

And? I watch MSNBC - they’re no worse than Fox IMO. Both seek to push people’s emotional buttons and to represent that they only possess the truth. I would hate to think that my view of the world would be dominated by EITHER network.

That said, both hit the mark with their reporting from time to time. Nobody gives up their brain when they pick up the remote, so it’s up to us to weigh what any talking head says.

Naturally, you might find my stance disappointing but I tend not to dismiss any group or entity wholesale unless they represent a single issue that I clearly see as invalid or wrong.

 

[seekerz]

I was actually waiting for this…it happens every time, on every thread, when a defense of the faith is launched, but I think I’m finally beginning to understand.

You are? That’s encouraging.

 

[Mickey]

I tend not to dismiss any group or entity wholesale unless they represent a single issue that I clearly see as invalid or wrong.

You absolutely knew about Obama’s stance on abortion on demand…partial birth abortion…homosexual “marriage”…funding of Planned Parenthood…etc.

And so he should have been dismissed wholesale.

Even if you strongly felt that Romney was a liar and would do or say anything to get elected…you had no evidence that he would be as pro-abortion as Obama.

But you knew Obama’s stance…and you supported him…agaisnst the consensus of the Catholic bishops and priests. How very sad.