Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

  • Thread starter Thread starter HansTrappist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lapey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lapey, ok and not by Tigg who I was responding to in my post you quoted. But I’ve been told I’m on my way there.
 
Also let me add on, Roe v. Wade would probably not have been overturned with a Romney administration however, “Constructionist” Nominees to the Supreme Court could have been nominated by Romney and Constructionist means how the Founding Fathers meant their words. Constructionist meaning those who constructed the Constitution. And I am confident that view would respect life.

You can read numerous quotes by the Founding Fathers, we all have seen them, some by Madison or Jefferson might be brought out but as a whole, I think they did have Christ centered values.

Believe it or not, abortion was even a subject back in those days, I believe David Barton has said that or someone else, some don’t like Barton, I already know.
 
CMatt25 said:
I’ve also seen Fr Serpa say one can not be Catholic and pro choice. Yet that contradicts your definition, deacon, of OCAC given to you by the Catholic Church. I think Fr Serpa just meant one can not be pro choice and a fully faithful Catholic.
Click to expand...
Matt, give up the liberalism for just a little while, your Church is telling you to change your ways. This is grasping at straws to hold on to own ideas of truth. The argument is over; it was over long before this statement. This statement matches the documents of the Magisterium. Now it is time for you and the others to look inside yourself for the change and conform to the teachings of the Church. I will continue to pray for your conversion of heart.
 
seekerz said:
This is no longer the age of “an Aspirin between the legs”…but then again, there are still people who believe that women can “shut that whole thing down”…What can I say? God help us.
Click to expand...
🙂
 
CMatt25 said:
I’ve also seen Fr Serpa say one can not be Catholic and pro choice. Yet that contradicts your definition, deacon, of OCAC given to you by the Catholic Church. I think Fr Serpa just meant one can not be pro choice and a fully faithful Catholic.
Click to expand...
I think I understand your attempt to side step here…one cannot be a Catholic in good standing and be publically pro-choice, as NP, JB, CS, and other Catholic politicians.

What he said about voting in an election as we just had, a Catholic voter, if he/she has a properly and fully formed conscience he/she will not vote for Obama. If he/she does it is a grave sin.

If one votes that way with an ill formed conscience or of no fault of their own, then there is no sin, period, end of story.
 
Lapey said:
You’re welcome…this is the first time I’ve gotten such a clean and concise answer, that you Fr. Serpa!!!
Click to expand...
According to that line of thinking, it would have been most anti-Catholic to vote for Reagan who had signed a pro-abortion law in California WHEN ABORTION WAS STILL ILLEGAL.
 
ProVobis said:
According to that line of thinking, it would have been most anti-Catholic to vote for Reagan who had signed a pro-abortion law in California WHEN ABORTION WAS STILL ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...
Depends on who was the opponent, and what was his platform and stance in the election you are speaking of. Personally I don’t remember, I was about 14…😃

Besides, we cannot change any of the elections past, even the one that just took place. Time to get prepared to teach the faithful the truth before the next one…in other words, status quo for me.👍

Anyway, this is not “a line of thinking”, it is in accord with Church doctrine and teachings. It is in line with the documents by the Magisterium. it all makes sense except for the confusion. Time to teach full truths.
 
seekerz said:
Why do you see the need to twist my words? I expect better from you.

The only sisters you know are those on the bus? How long have you been Catholic?

Church teaching has not changed but the world has - therefore expectations and strategies have to change. To expect that by the stroke of a pen people will stop having abortions to bring us back to pre-RvW numbers, is to ignore the medical developments that have made abortion much more accessible to women than it was 40 years ago.

This is no longer the age of “an Aspirin between the legs”…but then again, there are still people who believe that women can “shut that whole thing down”…What can I say? God help us.
Click to expand...
CMatt25 said:
🙂
Click to expand...
Not sure if either of you have seen the latest stats; more young people are waiting until marriage for sex. Abstinence works every time!

In my experience, if you teach these little ones the truth about TOB they will eat it up. I have faith in people to be good, I wish all adults did.
 
Lapey said:
Matt, give up the liberalism for just a little while, your Church is telling you to change your ways. This is grasping at straws to hold on to own ideas of truth. The argument is over; it was over long before this statement. This statement matches the documents of the Magisterium. Now it is time for you and the others to look inside yourself for the change and conform to the teachings of the Church. I will continue to pray for your conversion of heart.
Click to expand...
Lapey, if it was my church it would say so here on a “Catholic Answers” forum. At the very least it would say non practicing or dissenting Catholic. So until it does please stop referring to it as my church.
 
CMatt25 said:
Lapey, if it was my church it would say so here on a “Catholic Answers” forum. At the very least it would say non practicing or dissenting Catholic. So until it does please stop referring to it as my church.
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought that was your point??? You are confusing…:confused::o
 
Lapey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, you quoted paragraph 34 but you left out paragraphs 33, 35 and 36, were the Bishops make it explicitly clear that you may not vote for candidates that support an intrinsic evil by appealing to their positions on other lesser issues like feeding the poor, or fixing immigration, etc.

There is only one scenario where you may vote for a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil and that is when the other candidate also supports the same intrinsic evil (see paragraph 36). In this dilemna, you may choose to either 1. Not vote or 2. Vote for the candidate that will do the most to limit the intrinsic evil in question. But, you may not appeal to secondary issues (economy, immigration, etc.) in order to make the decision, not when an*** INTRINSIC ***evil is involved.

Obama supported and supports the INTRINSIC evil of abortion on demand (as well as homosexual marriage). That ruled him out as a viable choice for Catholics by default. You can’t appeal to any positive things he may or may not do on secondary issues (immigration, economy, ect.) when he already supports and INTRINSIC evil on demand. The USCCB makes this clear in their Faithful Citizenship guide, 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.

Obama supports a “fundamental moral evil” on demand so you can’t ignore his support for it by appealing to any good he may or may not do reagarding less fundamental evils like the poor and immigration, etc.

The only viable choice was Romney, but Catholics did not HAVE to vote for him since he also supported the intrinsic evil of abortion in cases of rape and incest.
 
Lapey said:
Not sure if either of you have seen the latest stats; more young people are waiting until marriage for sex. Abstinence works every time!
Click to expand...
If so I think that’s great Lapey. It does and I have no problem with young people waiting.
 
HansTrappist said:
Well, you quoted paragraph 34 but you left out paragraphs 33, 35 and 36, were the Bishops make it explicitly clear that you may not vote for candidates that support an intrinsic evil by appealing to their positions on other lesser issues like feeding the poor, or fixing immigration, etc.

There is only one scenario where you may vote for a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil and that is when the other candidate also supports the same intrinsic evil (see paragraph 36). In this dilemna, you may choose to either 1. Not vote or 2. Vote for the candidate that will do the most to limit the intrinsic evil in question. But, you may not appeal to secondary issues (economy, immigration, etc.) in order to make the decision, not when an*** INTRINSIC ***evil is involved.

Obama supported and supports the INTRINSIC evil of abortion on demand (as well as homosexual marriage). That ruled him out as a viable choice for Catholics by default. You can’t appeal to any positive things he may or may not do on secondary issues (immigration, economy, ect.) when he already supports and INTRINSIC evil on demand. The USCCB makes this clear in their Faithful Citizenship guide, 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.

Obama supports a “fundamental moral evil” on demand so you can’t ignore his support for it by appealing to any good he may or may not do reagarding less fundamental evils like the poor and immigration, etc.

The only viable choice was Romney, but Catholics did not HAVE to vote for him since he also supported the intrinsic evil of abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Click to expand...
You’re preaching to the choir here Hans!!! The only acceptable vote in this past election, for a Catholic with a fully and properly formed conscience was Romney, the lesser of two evils, or a no vote, or a third party pro-life candidate. Only one vote would have helped defeat the candidate that stands for intrinsic evils, Romney.

i apologize for not making it clear I was supporting your point.
 
CMatt25 said:
You mean the one that states, “It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote”? And the guide which warns against reducing moral concerns to one or two matters? If so you apparently are correct. Clearly with it not being a voter’s guide nor a direction on how to vote, Catholics did not have to vote for Romney.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9234557&postcount=1
Click to expand...
Right, Catholics did not HAVE to vote for Romney.

But they certainly could not vote for Obama. Why? Because Obama supports the intrinsic evil of abortion ON DEMAND. Rules him out by default and at that point his stance on lesser issues like the economy, immigration, etc. do not apply.

The ironic thing about this whole election is that had Romney taken a 100% pro-life stance, he probably would have won. His exceptions for rape and incest most likely turned many Catholics off who otherwise would have voted for him. Romney’s exceptions for rape and incest still remain one of the mysteries of this election. Why did he have exceptions? I don’t think anyone knows. It certainly did not help him politically.
 
Lapey said:
You’re preaching to the choir here Hans!!! The only acceptable vote in this past election, for a Catholic with a fully and properly formed conscience was Romney, the lesser of two evils, or a no vote, or a third party pro-life candidate. Only one vote would have helped defeat the candidate that stands for intrinsic evils, Romney.

i apologize for not making it clear I was supporting your point.
Click to expand...
Right-O.
 
HansTrappist said:
Right, Catholics did not HAVE to vote for Romney.

But they certainly could not vote for Obama. Why? Because Obama supports the intrinsic evil of abortion ON DEMAND. Rules him out by default and at that point his stance on lesser issues like the economy, immigration, etc. do not apply.

The ironic thing about this whole election is that had Romney taken a 100% pro-life stance, he probably would have won. His exceptions for rape and incest most likely turned many Catholics off who otherwise would have voted for him. Romney’s exceptions for rape and incest still remain one of the mysteries of this election. Why did he have exceptions? I don’t think anyone knows. It certainly did not help him politically.
Click to expand...
I think you are partially right about running a 100% prolife campaign. Other factors were key as well. I think many doubted he was truly conservative and many even though they will not admit this will not vote for a Mormon and sooner than they would vote for an atheist or Moslem.
 
HansTrappist said:
Right, Catholics did not HAVE to vote for Romney.

But they certainly could not vote for Obama. Why? Because Obama supports the intrinsic evil of abortion ON DEMAND. Rules him out by default and at that point his stance on lesser issues like the economy, immigration, etc. do not apply.

The ironic thing about this whole election is that had Romney taken a 100% pro-life stance, he probably would have won. His exceptions for rape and incest most likely turned many Catholics off who otherwise would have voted for him. Romney’s exceptions for rape and incest still remain one of the mysteries of this election. Why did he have exceptions? I don’t think anyone knows. It certainly did not help him politically.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, that same view IS the Mormon Church’s view* basically* but on the other hand, Rep. Ryan did say he believed in life at conception. This is a tricky issue with the electorate.

That said, I think they would have done a good job and the abortion industry would have been on its backheels.

I think Romney’s stance was enough to placate and please Catholic Clergy, after all, this is a war we are in, a war of ideas, it is very difficult. He stuck his neck out for us, I voted for him without criticism.

As it is, now we stand a chance to get a bunch of abortion because Obama won.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top