Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[Lapey]

That was my question Tigg. I think it might be some leave the practice or the full communion or no longer are 100% faithful. Maybe even some Obama voters. But no I don’t think that is the same as leaving behind their membership according to Catholic Church teaching nor not having the right to call themselves some sort of Catholic if they so choose. Non practicing, dissenting for instance. At least from what I previously knew and from what Deacon Lapey has explained to all of us. But I guess as an outsider looking into the Catholic Church, I never quite understand why faithful Catholics would want to tell their less faithful they should leave and not call themslves Catholics if that could alienate them further. I’d fear in that case it might lead them to never seek the reconcilation the faithful want so much for them.

But I won’t begin to imagine how long it might take anyone along their faith journey. Nor will I proclaim whose hearts are not lukewarm but instead are on fire for Jesus. I’m going to leave that one up to the Lord.

I believe one factor which is being ignored here is this. Excommunication, whether self imposed or Church imposed, is not a punishment nor is it meant to separate one from the Church or God. It is the last stitch effort to bring a person back into communion. To believe anything less is heretical thinking, or heterodoxical thinking at best.

Excommunication is a method of bring back to the fold one who has left or is in error. The Church will never change, praise God! She hasn’t changed, and again Praise God! The Church has held true to the teachings of the earliest Christians for almost 2000 years. It is up to us to learn and discern then conform to Her teachings, because She is Truth in Jesus Christ, there is no fullness of truth outside of Him who is the Head of the Catholic Church.

 

[Lapey]

I have also heard a call for Republicans to soften up on their social values, or they will not be able to survive. I don’t buy that line of thinking, but that’s the word on the street. Great article by Archbishop Chaput though, where he talks about faithful Catholics soon will not be able to support either party, the day is fast approaching etc. That I can concur with.

This is my thought as well. The dem party gave in to evil years ago, the rep party is wishy washy at best and so will write evil into their platform as well. All in the name of being liked, sad day we live in.

I say we start our own party, the Catholic Party, Latin Rite! Who is with me???

Yes, I’m joking…for now…

 

[Tampa_Dave]

This is my thought as well. The dem party gave in to evil years ago, the rep party is wishy washy at best and so will write evil into their platform as well. All in the name of being liked, sad day we live in.

I say we start our own party, the Catholic Party, Latin Rite! Who is with me???

Yes, I’m joking…for now…

From what I saw of the election results, you probably wouldn’t get 50% of Catholics to join your proposed ‘Catholic Party’. You might get a tremendous amount of Evangelicals, however.

 

[BroomWagon]

This is my thought as well. The dem party gave in to evil years ago, the rep party is wishy washy at best and so will write evil into their platform as well. All in the name of being liked, sad day we live in.

I say we start our own party, the Catholic Party, Latin Rite! Who is with me???

Yes, I’m joking…for now…

I don’t think the Republican Party will write evil into their platform, State-wise, they are doing well.

Where has evil been defunded? Wisconsin, New Jersey by Republicans and Republican Governors, Texas too.

So you mention a Catholic Party? So, Catholics were adamant in their voting attitudes and supported the Party 100% that the Catholic Hierarchy endorsed for having a moral platform?? The Republican Party you say let them down???

OH WAIT!

And I’m not joking!

 

[Lapey]

The Magisterium said that there are no proportionate reasons to vote for Obama or someone like him? Where? When? In what document?

In all of the documents you have quoted stating the opposite. We have hashed these out already and the only option is to agree to disagree. Until you are ready to take these documents in their entirety with the Scripture and Tradition, you will continue to decide on your own what truth is.

Look into what the documents call intrinsic evils and what that means. There is your answer. There are no proportionate reasons, nor prudential judgments that can be made where IEs are concerned, they are always evil and must be opposed. If the two viable candidates are in agreement on the IE then other issues can be judged by proportionate reasoning to decide. This election did not see this case play out. There was a decided difference between these two candidates, perfect difference? Not hardly, I agree, but a difference none the less.

 

[Lapey]

You cannot choose the candidate without choosing the platform, according to whom Deacon? And just what is an abortion limiter/eliminator? A man who has to be reminded of his abortion position? Never mind that he has not explained how he would limit/eliminate abortion.

If you want to stand on words and promises that’s YOUR choice. It’s not mine. I prefer to deal in what is based on some appreciation of the real world - not the world that I wish existed.

This one is quite simple; don’t make it harder than it needs to be. Obama’s words, actions, and past record proves he want abortion on demand to continue; and furthermore, campaigned on making sure the pro-abortion majority continues into the next generation on the Supreme Court to defend R v W.

You are right on one point; there is no doubting Obama’s intention.

As far as the party platform, yes it is owned by the candidates and this one was shaped by Obama. Even the word “God” was removed until he knew it was not a good thing politically to remove it, then he forced it back in. I watched that vote live, three times the vote was asked for, three times the dems rejected it; but it was placed back in against the will of the dems present. So yes, the candidate owns the platform.

 

[Lapey]

I don’t think the Republican Party will write evil into their platform, State-wise, they are doing well.

Where has evil been defunded? Wisconsin, New Jersey by Republicans and Republican Governors, Texas too.

So you mention a Catholic Party? So, Catholics were adamant in their voting attitudes and supported the Party 100% that the Catholic Hierarchy endorsed for having a moral platform?? The Republican Party you say let them down???

OH WAIT!

And I’m not joking!

I truly hope you are right, that at least one major party will continue to completely protect life. My comments could be considered hyperbole, but in some cases the rep party does not fully protect the sanctity of life; abortion in rape incest and life of the mother, capital punishment, immigration, recent wars, etc. So if I were to say that neither party is truly pro-life, I would be making a true statement.

Are there purely pro-life people in the party? Yes, there are many good examples but still not perfect. My point was about changing the platform, so far the GOP has not given in to the demands from the left to “soften” its views on social issues, but if they would I am ready to leave it just like I left the dems in '94. Question is, are you?

 

[BroomWagon]

I truly hope you are right, that at least one major party will continue to completely protect life. My comments could be considered hyperbole, but in some cases the rep party does not fully protect the sanctity of life; abortion in rape incest and life of the mother, capital punishment, immigration, recent wars, etc. So if I were to say that neither party is truly pro-life, I would be making a true statement.

Are there purely pro-life people in the party? Yes, there are many good examples but still not perfect. My point was about changing the platform, so far the GOP has not given in to the demands from the left to “soften” its views on social issues, but if they would I am ready to leave it just like I left the dems in '94. Question is, are you?

Yes, I would be ready to leave the party in that case.

I have read the Constitution Party website. I like a lot of their platforms, it’s hard to find one that is perfect for our beliefs, I think they are okay but very small.

 

[BroomWagon]

There are a number of editorials out there asserting fraud in this election. I’m sure there was some but probably not to any great effect at least in the election for the Presidency, GOP lawyers would be all over it.

With that said, apparently inconsistencies are found in the Allen West election in Florida. That is pretty bad and if their have been illegalities, I hope we find out exactly who did it.

 

[seekerz]

There are a number of editorials out there asserting fraud in this election. I’m sure there was some but probably not to any great effect at least in the election for the Presidency, GOP lawyers would be all over it.

With that said, apparently inconsistencies are found in the Allen West election in Florida. That is pretty bad and if their have been illegalities, I hope we find out exactly who did it.

Inconsistencies? That’s rich. A state that has it’s people standing in line for up to a full workday and cannot count its ballots for days after the election is over, has electoral inconsistencies! I’d say they do…good thing the rest of the country couldn’t care less.

 

[seekerz]

Wilberforce sought to change the law and change peoples hearts same time which was pro lifes are doing. You can not do either on its own.

Historically, Wiberforce agitated and spoke against slavery for many years before he had a prayer in the legislature and even then it was hardly a cakewalk. He put the cart before the horse - smart guy.

 

[seekerz]

Study by National Bureau of Economic Research says state ban on abortion would reduce abortion and women wanting abortion are sensitive to the travel costs they would need to pay to travel out of state for abortion

If you wait for only hearts and minds to change the slaughter will continue in far bigger numbers than if you pursue change to law and changing minds. Neither has to be done in isolation, you can seek to change minds and change the law. Having limitations on abortion protects the majority of women

We ARE waiting…AND waiting AND all I see is people hardening their positions as some seek to force them into a position they do not accept. Women are sensitive to travel costs? So why would they have to travel if they can’t afford it? This IS 2012.

 

[seekerz]

In all of the documents you have quoted stating the opposite. We have hashed these out already and the only option is to agree to disagree. Until you are ready to take these documents in their entirety with the Scripture and Tradition, you will continue to decide on your own what truth is.

Look into what the documents call intrinsic evils and what that means. There is your answer. There are no proportionate reasons, nor prudential judgments that can be made where IEs are concerned, they are always evil and must be opposed. If the two viable candidates are in agreement on the IE then other issues can be judged by proportionate reasoning to decide. This election did not see this case play out. There was a decided difference between these two candidates, perfect difference? Not hardly, I agree, but a difference none the less.

That’s not what I see in ANY Church document. One may, for proportionate reasons, choose to vote for a candidate who supports abortion, if abortion is not the reason for one’s support. Is the Church contradicting itself? No. YOU are mistaken in your interpretation.

There is more to voting than isolating abortion as though it is completely unrelated to any other issue in life.

 

[BroomWagon]

Inconsistencies? That’s rich. A state that has it’s people standing in line for up to a full workday and cannot count its ballots for days after the election is over, has electoral inconsistencies! I’d say they do…good thing the rest of the country couldn’t care less.

Link? No. You don’t have one, half the country practically voted for Romney, 1/5% percentage point difference, that’s rich. Go ahead and be rude and not provide back up. This will show the quality of your arguments.

 

[rossum]

There are a number of editorials out there asserting fraud in this election. I’m sure there was some but probably not to any great effect at least in the election for the Presidency, GOP lawyers would be all over it.

With that said, apparently inconsistencies are found in the Allen West election in Florida. That is pretty bad and if their have been illegalities, I hope we find out exactly who did it.

If you are talking about the “141% cards cast” in parts of Florida, that is because a “card” is not a vote. There was so much stuff on the ballot, from Deputy Dog-catcher to twelve proposed constitutional amendments, that each ballot consisted of two cards. 141% cards equates to 70.5% ballots. One ballot = two cards. See comments at Voter fraud rumor of the day.

If there was something real here then the Republicans would have been all over it.

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

That’s not what I see in ANY Church document. One may, for proportionate reasons, choose to vote for a candidate who supports abortion, if abortion is not the reason for one’s support.

You have completely misinterpreted whatever Church documents you are reading. It has been explained during both recent election years, and quite recently, pre-election, by the learned Catholic moral theologian, Colin Donovan, trained in Rome. He explained two things:

(1) It is not a minor issue; it is not subordinate to other life issues or equal to other life issues, such that a Catholic voter has the option of selecting a favorite (post-birth) life issue and justifying a vote for a candidate with a more pronounced pro-abortion position than the other major candidate.

(2) It is not, singularly, a matter of “the reason for the vote.” What is first prioritized in the informed Catholic conscience is a comparison of stated positions on the hierarchical life issues, on which post-birth life issues depend. He gave many examples, as he has in previous years. the most frequent example he gives is between two candidates with imperfect moral priorities, according to Catholic morality — which would include the vast majority of presidential candidates, by the way.

He explained that if two candidates support abortion-on-demand with equal fervor and equal reach (including the appointment of justices in that regard), a Catholic looks at their other positions, and again, he specified: If one of them opposes Catholic positions on one or several other primary life issues (embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide, “marriage” “equality”), then the Catholic looks at these additional primary life issues. If they are equal with respect to those as well, then the next layer is addresssed.

He restated the Catholic theological position that matters relating the generation of and direct ending of biological life are superior in moral gravity to matters relating to social justice, when a voting decision is being made.

He specifically said that if two candidates have unequal positions on the primary life issues (which was true of the recent two major candidates), the Catholic’s moral obligation is to choose (if between the two) the candidate who least violates those primary positions, despite knowing that neither candidate is “pure” on abortion, and that such a decision accords with an “allowed” vote. (Neither candidate’s position accords with Catholic values on primary life issues, but a vote for one is “allowed” because “the reason” is not, *He supports some forms of abortion/](which he does).

This is not Colin’s “opinion.” It’s his knowledge. His degree is in Catholic moral theology, a degree which includes how to interpret Church documents on moral issues.*

 

[_Abyssinia]

Historically, Wiberforce agitated and spoke against slavery for many years before he had a prayer in the legislature and even then it was hardly a cakewalk. He put the cart before the horse - smart guy.

Willberforce was not satisfied with changing minds, he wanted to change the law. Martin Luther King JR did not wait until minds were changed on civil rights, he sought to change the law

 

[_Abyssinia]

We ARE waiting…AND waiting AND all I see is people hardening their positions as some seek to force them into a position they do not accept. Women are sensitive to travel costs? So why would they have to travel if they can’t afford it? This IS 2012.

If a president is pro life or pro abortion that has implications on the abortion rate. Abortion rate declined 8.1% when George Bush was president because of the pro life laws he passed. The most pro abortion president in US history has been reelected and that has devastating consequences for the unborn

Through funding to the UN and the Mexico city policy the president also has implications for abortion in other countries around the world

You said regarding state restrictions on abortion, that women will turn elsewhere to get an abortion. Study I linked says women are sensitive to travel costs they would need to pay to get an abortion and to travel to another state

 

[Lapey]

That’s not what I see in ANY Church document. One may, for proportionate reasons, choose to vote for a candidate who supports abortion, if abortion is not the reason for one’s support. Is the Church contradicting itself? No. YOU are mistaken in your interpretation.

There is more to voting than isolating abortion as though it is completely unrelated to any other issue in life.

Not true, the statement “if the voter does not vote for that reason.” or whatever it reads, is the big stickler. Many bishops objected to that statement and still do. Why, because it goes against many other writings which are authoritative where the ones we are talking about are not. Simple fact is, by voting in a candidate who has proven his stance will continue abortion on demand, we participate in that evil. Now if you want to argue levels of participation, or culpability that is different.

And yes, there is much more than one issue in a vote. There are hundreds I’m sure, but the Church has stated that many are non-negotiable. You know them, and you know that supporting them is not acceptable. A vote is supporting, even though it is not intended.

 

[seekerz]

Link? No. You don’t have one, half the country practically voted for Romney, 1/5% percentage point difference, that’s rich. Go ahead and be rude and not provide back up. This will show the quality of your arguments.

Link to what? The long lines in Florida? Try the websites of CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Reuters…