Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[seekerz]

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.

Oh, so you’re picking and choosing which documents to take literally but I must accept your stance? Sorry. My bishops speak - I listen and adjust my behavior accordingly. My priest does not pick and choose: why should I listen to you over him?

 

[seekerz]

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

How long did he march before the law changed? To my knowledge, throughout history, there has always been a growing social movement before momentous legislation on social issues. A righteous King or dictator (is that even possible?) might be the only exception but in democratic countries, people first have to rise and demand change in enough numbers and for a long enough time to be heard and taken seriously.

 

[CMatt25]

I’m so tired of hearing of how much more one person gives to charity than the next. How do you know how much a person gives? It might not be to a formal charity: it might be to the neighbor downstairs. Who knows and why is it anybody’s business but God’s? Have the parables on giving and on self-righteousness gone out of fashion or something?

:clapping:

 

[seekerz]

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*.

A single theologian does not craft Church doctrine: for example, there have been long drawn out debates on ‘life of the mother’ and what constitutes licit treatment since the time of St Augustine.

I am not obligated to accept the word of a single theologian regardless of how many degrees he holds. I am obligated to listen to my bishop and my priest. That is what I have done. Any questions - take it up with them.

 

[CMatt25]

Wait, I thought you were arguing that OCAC? You are Catholic, aren’t you? That is your argument, isn’t it?

As far as God being rep or dem, that is just silly; you know that. But I ask you this; doesn’t He have an answer for all of the issues of today that you call merely political? Abortion is not politics, neither is marriage or helping the poor and homeless. War, death penalty, healthcare, immigration, energy, etc., all of these topics are of interest of Jesus, don’t you agree? Why would they not be talked about in His Church? Why would His ministers not teach the faithful about these issues?

Depends on who answers. But yes my argument was are those Obama voting baptized Catholics, some of which may have also been confirmed, and some Democrats I imagine and not conservative GOP, still considered to be Catholics. He has answers. Which is why I have no idea why the minister I’ve referenced gave the one He did about the poor. But oh well in any case God bless you all. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

A single theologian does not craft Church doctrine: for example, there have been long drawn out debates on ‘life of the mother’ and what constitutes licit treatment since the time of St Augustine.

I am not obligated to accept the word of a single theologian regardless of how many degrees he holds. I am obligated to listen to my bishop and my priest. That is what I have done. Any questions - take it up with them.

I’m reading this thread and I see a lot of disagreement among Catholics and confusion about documents and whether you should listen to the deacon or one theologian or your own bishop and priest. But if you’re obligated to your own bishop and priest, then great post Seekerz. God’s blessings and peace to you and to all who walk their faith journeys.

 

[Mickey]

I am obligated to listen to my bishop and my priest. That is what I have done. Any questions - take it up with them.

You are correct. It is on their souls…not yours.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m reading this thread and I see a lot of disagreement among Catholics and confusion about documents and whether you should listen to the deacon or one theologian or your own bishop and priest. But if you’re obligated to your own bishop and priest, then great post Seekerz. God’s blessings and peace to you and to all who walk their faith journeys.

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.

 

[seekerz]

You are correct. It is on their souls…not yours.

Correct. God’s blessings will fall on their souls for their sound spiritual leadership.

 

[Mickey]

God’s blessings will fall on their souls for their sound spiritual leadership.

But it seems the majority of bishops, priests, deacons and laity are opposed to the advice that they gave to you…so God will sort it out in the end.

 

[HansTrappist]

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*.

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.

Basically, what they said, was when two candidates support an intrinsic evil (and Romney’s abortion exceptions put him into this category) then Catholics are faced with two options:

1. They can take the extraordinary step of NOT voting, or
2. They can vote for the candidate that will limit the intrinsic evil.

Now, I have YET to hear a convincing argument that Barack Obama would have lessened the intrinsic evil more than Romney, given that Barack Obama supports abortion **on demand **.

Ironically, had Romney taken a 100% pro-life position he may have won the election, as I am sure that there were many Catholics that selected option 1 above, thus indirectly tipping the election in Obama’s favor. Of course, with all the stories of voter fraud coming out now, even that dynamic might not have made a difference.

 

[pete_29]

Correct. God’s blessings will fall on their souls for their sound spiritual leadership.

You complain about this,maybe rightly so, but do you think it’s wise to say for sure just who God will bless?

 

[BroomWagon]

Let’s remember this.

There are clergy that dissent on some opinions in the Church, a good place to look for examples of this are the few cases where Priests have come out for Same Sex Marriage. I hope I can say this.

lifesitenews.com/news/dissenting-minnesota-priest-calls-for-archbishops-resignation-for-defending/

MINNEAPOLIS, November 9, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Minneapolis-area priest has called for the resignation of Archbishop John Nienstedt after the archbishop supported Minnesota’s effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage.”

So, there is some dissent. It does not seem common.

In Washington State, one parish declined to participate in the crusade for Traditional Marriage saying it was a painful subject.

 

[CMatt25]

No doubt there will be many baptized Catholics in hell

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.

 

[JimG]

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.

Basically, what they said, was when two candidates support an intrinsic evil (and Romney’s abortion exceptions put him into this category) then Catholics are faced with two options:

1. They can take the extraordinary step of NOT voting, or
2. They can vote for the candidate that will limit the intrinsic evil.

Now, I have YET to hear a convincing argument that Barack Obama would have lessened the intrinsic evil more than Romney, given that Barack Obama supports abortion **on demand **.

Ironically, had Romney taken a 100% pro-life position he may have won the election, as I am sure that there were many Catholics that selected option 1 above, thus indirectly tipping the election in Obama’s favor. Of course, with all the stories of voter fraud coming out now, even that dynamic might not have made a difference.

So now, we not only get continued abortion on demand, but religious persecution, and a continuing faltering economy. I just can’t see any positives here.

 

[seekerz]

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.

Basically, what they said, was when two candidates support an intrinsic evil (and Romney’s abortion exceptions put him into this category) then Catholics are faced with two options:

1. They can take the extraordinary step of NOT voting, or
2. They can vote for the candidate that will limit the intrinsic evil.

Now, I have YET to hear a convincing argument that Barack Obama would have lessened the intrinsic evil more than Romney, given that Barack Obama supports abortion **on demand **.

Ironically, had Romney taken a 100% pro-life position he may have won the election, as I am sure that there were many Catholics that selected option 1 above, thus indirectly tipping the election in Obama’s favor. Of course, with all the stories of voter fraud coming out now, even that dynamic might not have made a difference.

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.

 

[BroomWagon]

So now, we not only get continued abortion on demand, but religious persecution, and a continuing faltering economy. I just can’t see any positives here.

African American Legislator, Texas says all Obama has given is abortion.

lifenews.com/2012/11/12/black-legislator-obamas-given-us-nothing-but-abortion/

 

[oldcelt]

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

 

[seekerz]

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.

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

 

[HansTrappist]

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.

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.