It is clear that 50% of Catholics substantially disagree with Church teaching on human life. That same percentage is so ideologically tied to a certain political party that it trumps their allegiance to the Church. That means, sadly, that 50% of Catholics should humble themselves and either grant assent to Church teaching, or find another Church. This may be bitter medicine, but medicine it remains.
Well reasoned prudential judgment with which other can disagree and yet not run afoul of Catholic teaching… That’s the pointBut one party clearly supported the Catholic position better than the other. To not see this is horribly flawed IMHO. If you’re going to sit and wait for the perfect candidate to come along that conforms to Church teachings perfectly, then I’m afraid you’ll never vote. And I’ll bet sadly that this is what far too many Catholics did this past election, sat it out.Face it, that’s what we’re up against here, to choose the candidate that comes closer to what our church teaches and hopefully we can slowly make progress to eradicate these intrinsic evils. But, the way I see it, one of these parties was clearly ALL in on these intrinsic evils, and I could never ever in good faith vote for them!
Gary - the point is both candidates support abortion. So, by that logic you could vote for neither…as I said.
But since you agree that all of them are in favor of abortion you either: (1) cannot vote for any of them; or (2) you fall back on prudence - and people can disagree on that. I am stunned you give Ryan a bye…that’s the same as giving Pelosi a bye…
you need to read your question, above, again and his answer. Nothing said here is disputed or at issue. Go back and ask this question.
As far as it goes, I agree 100% with Fr. Serpa. You didn’t ask the right question and have read too much into the answer.
This!
This sounds like a reasonable analysis. Put it up there as a question!
I think the Deacon asked the right question… but the answer was also sufficiently nuanced to appear to be saying one thing while still being able to be interpreted as saying other things, too. Fr Serpa is an intelligent man…
Mea maxima culpa, Deacon G…
He may have called it something else, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Let me see if I’ve got your opinion straight, we Americans are too sinful to point out sin; okay, so if the clergy cannot teach proper teaching then who can?
A agree that both major candidates favored abortion in at least limited situations, in your judgment this disqualifies both. This is a legitimate choice which I mentioned. However, using the the documents option of voting the lesser of two evils between the two viable candidates, one could also choose legitimately Romney.
Yes Gorgias, I think you have it right. If I were to have voted Romney for his stance on the exceptions to allow abortion, then yes I would be guilty of grievous sin. Just as if I would have voted for Obama, even though I have rejected the Church teachings about him not being an acceptable candidate because of his acceptance of abortion on demand. In other words, with a fully and properly formed conscience I would know that Obama is disqualified, but vote for him anyway. I would be in grievous sin.This!
(OK… other than the fact that you should’ve said, “Deacon Gary – the point…”)
The fact is that both parties’ candidates were in favor of abortion – one party’s candidate put more restrictions on it (“rape, incest, life of the mother”), but both refused to say that they would do all in their power to abolish abortion.
That being the case, then, we have to make a judgment. However, I have a question for ya’ll: the Catholic position, correctly stated by Deacon Gary, is that a “Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil… if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion.” Romney’s stand on abortion permits it in certain cases. If you vote for Romney, because of his stand on abortion, aren’t you then necessarily formally cooperating in evil?
(And yes, before you start frothing at the mouth, I’m playing devil’s advocate here…)
This sounds like a reasonable analysis. Put it up there as a question!
I think the Deacon asked the right question… but the answer was also sufficiently nuanced to appear to be saying one thing while still being able to be interpreted as saying other things, too. Fr Serpa is an intelligent man…
No biggie sir! It’s all good.Mea maxima culpa, Deacon G…
Very true here, and also let’s not forget the OP stated this was a newly ordained deacon; I can assure you that nerves have much to do with delivery. It is a very humbling experience to stand in front of a congregation, in Mass to deliver the homily. I am awestruck still every time I walk up to start. It has been almost two years since my ordination and I am feeling more comfortable now, but for from comfortable.He may have called it something else, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
The document to be published by the USCCB on the Sunday Homily says, “virtually every homily preached during the liturgy should make some connection between the Scriptures just heard and the Eucharist about to be celebrated”; yet, it also says that “a wedge should not be driven between the proper content and style of the Sunday homily and the teaching of the Church’s doctrine”.
If the deacon was speaking to the congregation about Church teachings and their application in the contemporary world, then it was a homily, and good for him! Maybe his style might be moderated a bit, so as not to offend, but as Augustine wrote, the doctor shouldn’t stop treatment because it’s painful to the patient!
As a newcomer, I was really stunned to see 50% of Catholics vote for a man who is blatantly attacking the Church. I find it very difficult to understand…
I am merely pointing out that picking one’s sins is not confined to those who voted ‘incorrectly’ - the sin of divorce is glossed over here because the culture is so heavily invested in it. Why else has the American church caved with the extremely liberal annulment procedure??Let me see if I’ve got your opinion straight, we Americans are too sinful to point out sin; okay, so if the clergy cannot teach proper teaching then who can?
And secondly, if one party is evil both should be and are in your opinion, so we must reject both. Right?
So let me get this straight, you are saying that Divorce trumps the millions of deaths occurring right now? Because from your responses, you said that you abhor abortion but then you go on a huge rant about divorce which implies, to me at least, that you think divorce is a bigger issue. Hmm… Death / Divorce?
Well it seems I hit a nerve - nothing trumps anything, your interpretation is your own.
Yes, but no candidate was talking about tightening divorce laws. I agree with you that divorce and the impact to breakdown in families should be fixed, but that is no where on the table. Even if we disregard that no major party stand completely with the Church on abortion, then lets look at other factors.
There is no political ‘issue’ with divorce because Catholics have not made it an issue - total silence from Catholics on this issue as far as I can see. No massive public meetings, no marches, no demanding that politicians make changes etc. In fact, not only silence, but massive amounts of Catholic ‘annulments’ that accompany civil divorce proceedings - so SUPPORT for divorce amongst American Catholics.