Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[seekerz]

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.

Did I say SINGLE ISSUE as in ONE, UNO? Decisions on political support for candidates involve multiple issues which I examine one by one.

The Church does not require us to assume the Bishop’s conscience: it very clearly instructs us to use our own. You know, the mental processes and spiritual resources that were endowed by our Creator and imparted by our baptism? Yes, those faculties. I will apologize to no one for using them - it is a duty of responsible Catholics.

 

[Lapey]

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.

Okay, are these issues something you find wrong, abortion, euthanasia, same sex “marriage”, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Lapey]

Did I say SINGLE ISSUE as in ONE, UNO? Decisions on political support for candidates involve multiple issues which I examine one by one.

The Church does not require us to assume the Bishop’s conscience: it very clearly instructs us to use our own. You know, the mental processes and spiritual resources that were endowed by our Creator and imparted by our baptism? Yes, those faculties. I will apologize to no one for using them - it is a duty of responsible Catholics.

You will, or at least better, apologize to God for using them wrongly; as will I for my mistakes.

 

[seekerz]

Okay, are these issues something you find wrong, abortion, euthanasia, same sex “marriage”, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning? A simple yes or no will suffice.

The MULTIPLE issues you listed, I find immoral. That said, they are not the ONLY issues to be considered at the polling booth. I can pick 10 personal acquaintances off the top of my head who would resist those issues to the death - but I would not pick them to run my lemonade stand, far less a country.

 

[seekerz]

You will, or at least better, apologize to God for using them wrongly; as will I for my mistakes.

Apologize to God for using what He gave me? Do you know what happens to the person who buries his ‘talents’?

 

[ProVobis]

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’m reminded of my sixth-grade nun who kept telling us (boys) that it was a mortal sin to put our hands in our pockets. True story.

I mean, it could be, but it certainly isn’t automatic as we learned later.

 

[Lapey]

Apologize to God for using what He gave me? Do you know what happens to the person who buries his ‘talents’?

Do you know what happens to a person who abuses his talents and does not defend the life of the least of our brethren? Hint, sheep and goats…

 

[Lapey]

The MULTIPLE issues you listed,** I find immoral**. That said, they are not the ONLY issues to be considered at the polling booth. I can pick 10 personal acquaintances off the top of my head who would resist those issues to the death - but I would not pick them to run my lemonade stand, far less a country.

They are all immoral, “but”…“IF”…these words are scary the way people use them.

The Church has stated many times there are issues of greater importance, these are most of them. It is not your choice to put other issues above them, this is not in accord with Church documents and teachings. It is according to political party line.

Catholic 1st, dem or rep 2nd.

Another point, it matters not what you find immoral, it matters what the Church tells you is immoral. She tells us all of these things are immoral and we cannot support them, only “if” both candidates agree on these can we go to others, why? Because they are intrinsic evils and must be opposed.

 

[seekerz]

Do you know what happens to a person who abuses his talents and does not defend the life of the least of our brethren? Hint, sheep and goats…

You have evidence that I do not defend ‘the least of these’? I have endangered my entire career in their defense, in case you’re interested. I simply disagree with you on the ways they can be protected. A president can prevent abortion about as effectively as we Catholics are currently effective at preventing contraceptive use within our ranks - that’s simply my judgment, you are under no obligation to accept it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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!

You can only quit once you’ve reached 15,000+ posts. Then you will experience the true levels of frustration that one gets in “discussing” things here. However, I won’t quit until ALL Catholics who post here are more loyal to Mother Church than they are to a political party. We are a loooooong way from that. I tend to ignore most of the comments from the non-Catholic posters when it comes to matters of faith and morals, since they don’t know the Catholic position accurately enough to speak to it. If they did, they’d be Catholic.

 

[Lapey]

You have evidence that I do not defend ‘the least of these’? I have endangered my entire career in their defense, in case you’re interested. I simply disagree with you on the ways they can be protected. A president can prevent abortion about as effectively as we Catholics are currently effective at preventing contraceptive use within our ranks - that’s simply my judgment, you are under no obligation to accept it.

You are publically supporting a candidate who by word, deed and record is in favor of all of these issues, most of all abortion. Who are the most vulnerable, I would say babes in the womb are more vulnerable then anyone. The Church agrees through Her documents and ministers.

 

[seekerz]

They are all immoral, “but”…“IF”…these words are scary the way people use them.

The Church has stated many times there are issues of greater importance, these are most of them. It is not your choice to put other issues above them, this is not in accord with Church documents and teachings. It is according to political party line.

Catholic 1st, dem or rep 2nd.

The Church has declared that it is my duty to weigh all issues. Are you suggesting that my not-to-be-trusted-to-run-a-lemonadestand friends could have run for office against Obama and that I’d have been obligated to vote for them? What would happen to the unborn when the country collapsed into chaos from their inept leadership? Increased abortion rates - that’s what.

 

[seekerz]

You are publically supporting a candidate who by word, deed and record is in favor of all of these issues, most of all abortion. Who are the most vulnerable, I would say babes in the womb are more vulnerable then anyone. The Church agrees through Her documents and ministers.

I don’t disagree on their vulnerability. I disagree on how they can be protected. We can continue to go around and around or we can look at abortion rates over the course of the last few presidencies: did abortion go up, go down or stay the same?

 

[Lapey]

The Church has declared that it is my duty to weigh all issues. Are you suggesting that my not-to-be-trusted-to-run-a-lemonadestand friends could have run for office against Obama and that I’d have been obligated to vote for them? What would happen to the unborn when the country collapsed into chaos from their inept leadership? Increased abortion rates - that’s what.

You are required to follow the Churches direction and defend all life! As far as your hypothetical, that is ridiculous and is only used to defend your liberal democrat party line opinion. Please try to be Catholic first.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The Church has declared that it is my duty to weigh all issues. Are you suggesting that my not-to-be-trusted-to-run-a-lemonadestand friends could have run for office against Obama and that I’d have been obligated to vote for them? **What would happen to the unborn when the country collapsed into chaos from their inept leadership? **Increased abortion rates - that’s what.

We’re gonna find out real soon.

 

[Mickey]

Another point, it matters not what you find immoral, it matters what the Church tells you is immoral. She tells us all of these things are immoral and we cannot support them, only “if” both candidates agree on these can we go to others, why? Because they are intrinsic evils and must be opposed.

Yes. I am wondering why he does not understand this. Dissociation perhaps?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yes. I am wondering why he does not understand this. Dissociation perhaps?

Greater loyalty to political ideology than to revealed Truth.

 

[Mickey]

Greater loyalty to political ideology than to revealed Truth.

In other words: brain-washed by the liberal democrats?

 

[Lapey]

I don’t disagree on their vulnerability. I disagree on how they can be protected. We can continue to go around and around or we can look at abortion rates over the course of the last few presidencies: did abortion go up, go down or stay the same?

Abortion will stay up as long as it is promoted as it has been especially during this race. Every time someone spoke about limiting or ending legal abortion, the leftists came out of the woodwork to demagogue the person speaking. The media picked up the fight and carried the day for the dems. Sad part is, 50% of Catholics went along for the ride.

Please tell what part of Romney’s vision for the future would cause the catastrophic end of civilization you mention which would increase abortion. The after that, please inform all of us what BO has done to limit or decrease abortion, no antidotal evidence allowed; you have his record and his word to rely on, that’s it.

His word promises more access, and his record proves more will live in poverty, so how will the current administration decrease abortion???

PS. If i’m not mistaken, abortions fell during the Bush II admin.

PSS. If we made all abortions illegal today, are you saying that abortion numbers would not decrease? Do you know that most states have still on the books anti-abortion laws? Louisiana still has laws on the books stating the illegality of abortion, so if R v W were overturned tomorrow, it would overnight be illegal here…Praise God! Who is the federal government that they can tell an individual state abortion is legal when the state has said the opposite. Isn’t this hypocrisy on the part of the federal government if you consider the two situations, slavery and abortion? Don’t you think that ending abortion is as important as ending slavery? If you do, then it’s time to overturn R v W and send the fight to the states.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Another point, it matters not what you find immoral, it matters what the Church tells you is immoral. She tells us all of these things are immoral and we cannot support them, only “if” both candidates agree on these can we go to others, why? Because they are intrinsic evils and must be opposed.

The thing is, the president or elected official has FAR more direct influence over many issues than over abortion. If that were not so abortion would have been banned by by the “Pro-life” leaders since Roe v Wade.

But the interesting thing here is that in spite of the Tea Party, in spite of the conservative base, Obama still won. That is just where our nation is at right now. The economy is the more pragmatic concern because it is immediately actionable.

“Leaders more in tune with the conservative base of the Republican Party” would have done even worse.