Deacon cut the Homily to make Political points...

[OraLabora]

I’m sorry, you can’t vote for Obama over Romney based on Romney’s abortion exceptions when Obama’s position is 100 times worse. A candidate need not be perfect to get your vote; you need to vote for the best candidate.

On all the critical issues where their can be no disagreement (abortion, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage”) Obama is worse. You can’t use the fact that Romney would allow 2% of abortions to justify a vote for a man who would allow 100% of them, and encourage more by providing gov’t funding.

That logic would allow you to vote for Hitler over Obama.

God Bless

Well, while I agree 110% on the evil of abortion (myself having been adopted as an infant), if we look at the big picture rather than a single issue: let’s assume candidate A is pro-abortion while candidate B places restrictions on abortion. However candidate A is proposing diplomacy for a thorny international issue, and candidate B is proposing an unjustified war that will cost thousands of lives on both sides.

Kind of muddies up the issue. Life is life, and unjustified killing is just that, unjustified plus immoral.

That said, looking at it from Canuckistan (Canada) where we’ve had abortion on demand for a long time now and NO political party proposes to do anything about it, what I see is:

1. you’ve had, since 1980, 20 years of Republican rule under leaders that would restrict abortion (8 years of Reagan; 4 of Bush Sr., 8 of Bush Jr.);
2. under those leaders the outcome of Roe vs. Wade continued essentially intact;
3. the Republican presidents had ample opportunity to stack the Supreme Court;
4. yet still… abortion on demand.

Now either the Republicans lied or are hypocrites or are completely ineffectual…and what makes one think that Romney would have been any different…or the US system of government with the chief executive, Congress and Senate not necessarily being made up of the same party, causes paralysis and nothing of significance gets done. Forgive my naivety as I say, I’m an outsider looking in.

My own feeling is that the morals of politicians are usually a fairly accurate reflection of the morals of society. Given that Western society, morally, is more or less going down the tubes (I include Canada and Western Europe in this), it’s not surprising that abortion continues to be essentially on-demand. Society has spoken, and society has decided that it wants no consequences attached to its sexual activity.

ISTM that this is a symptom of a society that is slowly chucking its moral values overboard, and, surprise surprise, that is a symptom of mainstream religion bleeding members. People have lost faith, become unchurched, and with that, have lost their moral compasses.

ISTM as well that expecting our politicians to go against the grain of the people that elect them is an unrealistic expectation. We really need to get to the root of the issue, and the root of the issue is re-evangelizing (not to be confused with proselytizing).

And the place to look first to evangelize, is in the mirror. We as Catholics need to become beacons that attract people back to (or for the first time to…) the Catholic faith. We also need to dialogue with other Christian groups to build alliances on life issues. That implies that ecumenism is important at least at some level. No surprise that the Church espouses this as well.

Until we build back a critical mass of Catholics and Christians walking hand-in-hand on this issue and representing a healthy majority of society, we’ll continue to get politicians-Republican and Democrat alike (or Conservative, Liberal or NDP in Canada)-that speak out of both sides of their mouths and cause us to waste much time in verbal churn that accomplishes exactly zero.

The good deacon’s expression of dismay at Catholics who voted Obama is understandable and well-meaning and certainly Catholics need to be reminded of the precious nature of life and our obligation in upholding this view. But I really do think that it is a wasted effort to aim the invective at politicians and the electoral system given the current social context. That effort really needs to focus on conversion, and that, I think, is a battle to be fought soul-by-soul.

 

[johnnykins]

IE? CA? HMC???

plz dnt txt. tks.

-T-

IE = Intrinsic Evil - used earlier by another poster and I just picked it up

CA = Catholic Answers - My bad

HMC - Holy Mother Church - often, though not always, used on this site.

C’mon, it makes it fun and further…makes it inscrutable

 

[johnnykins]

I’m sorry, you can’t vote for Obama over Romney based on Romney’s abortion exceptions when Obama’s position is 100 times worse. A candidate need not be perfect to get your vote; you need to vote for the best candidate.

On all the critical issues where their can be no disagreement (abortion, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage”) Obama is worse. You can’t use the fact that Romney would allow 2% of abortions to justify a vote for a man who would allow 100% of them, and encourage more by providing gov’t funding.

That logic would allow you to vote for Hitler over Obama.

God Bless

Yes it does…and that’s how far logic will get you.

 

[Gorgias]

If it walks like a duck why did the Deacon say it wasn’t a duck?

It’s a good question. If I were in that parish, I would ask him.

However, he’s a newly ordained deacon; maybe he’s got the idea in his head that every homily must be of a single, certain style.

(But remember: he said that his goal was a “‘Bible study’ lecture”. Even this, if he’d stuck to it, would actually be a homily! So, in retrospect, maybe he strayed a bit and let the homily get away from him; it’s happened before, and it’s not too uncommon for novice homilists.)

In any case, he told people that their political choices may not have been in line with Church teaching. It ruffled feathers. Wah…

(One thought: if the notion of this homily bothers you, it may be of value to ask why it bothers you. After all, the homilist’s role isn’t to entertain you, but rather, to challenge you to think about how you’re living out the Gospel message, in the context of your life, your current situation, the readings, and the liturgy. Sounds like he did exactly that! If it made you uncomfortable, and forced you to evaluate things that you ordinarily take for granted, then bully for him!

 

[superamazingman]

They need to talk issues, not party.

We are talking issues. It’s not our problem one party is nearly completely aligned with evil. We’re fighting evil, not the democrats. However, the more the democrats align themselves with evil, the more it will look like we are fighting them directly. Like I said, that’s not our problem.

 

[superamazingman]

I am not saying you are wrong…I am simply saying because a Catholic didn’t vote for Romney, or did vote for Obama, you cannot say a fortiori that it was an immoral choice. It MIGHT be an immoral choice, but as a prudential judgment it is not NECESSARILY so. You find the answer "easy’ while others may not…and that is allowed when both parties are advancing an intrinsic evil.

nope, sorry, wrong. Both parties are advancing an intrinsic evil, but can ANYONE make the case that the republicans are advancing the case for abortion more than the democrats are?

I thought so.

 

[superamazingman]

Oh,you’re right! I read that “he didn’t mention a party, but it was obvious…”

Why didn’t I reflect that in my post?

Catholics need to vote on issues, not on party lines.

And the issues almost always lead us to one side of the party lines…

Your point is?

 

[NSFrame]

Well, while I agree 110% on the evil of abortion (myself having been adopted as an infant), if we look at the big picture rather than a single issue: let’s assume candidate A is pro-abortion while candidate B places restrictions on abortion. However candidate A is proposing diplomacy for a thorny international issue, and candidate B is proposing an unjustified war that will cost thousands of lives on both sides.

Kind of muddies up the issue. Life is life, and unjustified killing is just that, unjustified plus immoral.

That said, looking at it from Canuckistan (Canada) where we’ve had abortion on demand for a long time now and NO political party proposes to do anything about it, what I see is:

1. you’ve had, since 1980, 20 years of Republican rule under leaders that would restrict abortion (8 years of Reagan; 4 of Bush Sr., 8 of Bush Jr.);
2. under those leaders the outcome of Roe vs. Wade continued essentially intact;
3. the Republican presidents had ample opportunity to stack the Supreme Court;
4. yet still… abortion on demand.

EXACTLY. Exactly why I voted for Obama. I see absolutely no evidence that Romney is “pro-life” in any way except to label himself as such to please the GOP voters. Even GW Bush, who I believe was 10x more genuinely anti-abortion than Romney, created no policy that reduced abortion or even made it more difficult to access legally.

Sorry, but if Hitler was anti-abortion and was running against Obama, I would vote for Obama. You can’t just say “Oh, publicly-stated stance abortion is the ONLY issue you can vote on”. That is why we have a conscience, to discern these types of things.

Romney is the biggest chameleon in the world. I don’t believe for a second he cares about abortion or any pro-life issue. The only issues he cares about are those that could get him elected.

So yes, I think the homily was completely inappropriate. The church cannot and will not tell you who to vote for.

 

[superamazingman]

EXACTLY. Exactly why I voted for Obama. I see absolutely no evidence that Romney is “pro-life” in any way except to label himself as such to please the GOP voters. Even GW Bush, who I believe was 10x more genuinely anti-abortion than Romney, created no policy that reduced abortion or even made it more difficult to access legally.

Sorry, but if Hitler was anti-abortion and was running against Obama, I would vote for Obama. You can’t just say “Oh, publicly-stated stance abortion is the ONLY issue you can vote on”. That is why we have a conscience, to discern these types of things.

Romney is the biggest chameleon in the world. I don’t believe for a second he cares about abortion or any pro-life issue. The only issues he cares about are those that could get him elected.

So yes, I think the homily was completely inappropriate. The church cannot and will not tell you who to vote for.

Oh yes she can. The only reason she hasn’t in the last 60 years is because of TAX LAWS. Hear that? TAX LAWS. Not moral law, or canon law, but tax law. The church does have the freedom to tell us how to vote.

Even if you might not be able to vote just on his abortion stance, what about his religious freedom stance, or gay marriage stance?

 

[buc_fan33]

EXACTLY. Exactly why I voted for Obama. I see absolutely no evidence that Romney is “pro-life” in any way except to label himself as such to please the GOP voters. Even GW Bush, who I believe was 10x more genuinely anti-abortion than Romney, created no policy that reduced abortion or even made it more difficult to access legally.

Sorry, but if Hitler was anti-abortion and was running against Obama, I would vote for Obama. You can’t just say “Oh, publicly-stated stance abortion is the ONLY issue you can vote on”. That is why we have a conscience, to discern these types of things.

Romney is the biggest chameleon in the world. I don’t believe for a second he cares about abortion or any pro-life issue. The only issues he cares about are those that could get him elected.

So yes, I think the homily was completely inappropriate. The church cannot and will not tell you who to vote for.

Fine. Be that as it may, did you take into consideration things such as the HHS mandate? This mandate has the very real possibility of ending Catholic health care, adoption agencies (at least the ones that haven’t been closed down due to refusal to allow homosexual couples to adopt), and Catholic education.

I get that one might agree with President Obama on any number of issues, but frankly, he, and the party of which he is the de facto head, are so wrong, on so many issues regarding intrinsic evils, I struggle to come up with any grounds on which a Catholic may in good conscience vote for him, and most, though not all, members of his party.

Mitt Romney was far from a perfect candidate. But I would argue his policy positions are a perfect example of the proper use of the principle of double effect: a foreseen, though unintended evil, is permitted, though not willed (in this case Gov. romney’s permissive stance on abortion in cases of rape or incest) in order to prevent a greater evil (in this case, the reelection of the most radically pro-abortion president in history and the implication of an unjust mandate that may close many good organizations engaging in countless evangeliztion and charitable efforts) from transpiring.

 

[buc_fan33]

Oh yes she can. The only reason she hasn’t in the last 60 years is because of TAX LAWS. Hear that? TAX LAWS. Not moral law, or canon law, but tax law. The church does have the freedom to tell us how to vote.

Even if you might not be able to vote just on his abortion stance, what about his religious freedom stance, or gay marriage stance?

I agree completely. I don’t think anyone would bat an eye if the Church were to say, for instance, that a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate openly professing support for slavery, or racism. Liberal churches do this all of the time. I even recall Hillary Clinton giving campaign speeches in churches. Why is nothing said in response to this?

The reality is that the administration brought this fight to the Church, not the other way around. Taken to its extreme, if there were a candidate or party openly advocating the killing of Catholics (think KKK style and what not), then following the logic that the Church can’t speak out against it, we would have no grounds of defending ourselves.

But, speaking as clergy, and as a member of the clergy who did preach on these matters, at some point there is only so much we can say and do. I don’t know of one single bishop who has not taught clearly on these matters. At some point it is up to the laity to reason through the arguments themselves, and/or heed their shepherds’ advice.

 

[superamazingman]

I agree completely. I don’t think anyone would bat an eye if the Church were to say, for instance, that a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate openly professing support for slavery, or racism. Liberal churches do this all of the time. I even recall Hillary Clinton giving campaign speeches in churches. Why is nothing said in response to this?

The reality is that the administration brought this fight to the Church, not the other way around. Taken to its extreme, if there were a candidate or party openly advocating the killing of Catholics (think KKK style and what not), then following the logic that the Church can’t speak out against it, we would have no grounds of defending ourselves.

But, speaking as clergy, and as a member of the clergy who did preach on these matters, at some point there is only so much we can say and do. I don’t know of one single bishop who has not taught clearly on these matters. At some point it is up to the laity to reason through the arguments themselves, and/or heed their shepherds’ advice.

yes, yes, yes!

I’m sure if a candidate had a policy that would effectively overturn any law against murder, then those liberals would have no problem having churches speak against him. But somehow, in other areas less extreme-sounding, but just as important, such as gay marriage or religious freedom or abortion, people get up in arms if anyone says anything negative that even vaguely points toward obama.

 

[LEMAITRE]

Why are people surprised when the clergy preaches Catholic Doctrine? It’s no surprise to Catholics that the Obama administration intends to force Catholic institutions to fund ‘abortion-inducing drugs’ for their employees under the HHS Mandate. Abortion is a non-negotiable, it’s about time some Catholics discovered that by navigating their foggy minds and quit being uncomfortable and outraged that their clergy actually believes in and is willing to defend Church Doctrine via the pulpit.

Jesus did exactly the same thing, he told people what they didn’t want to hear, he made them uncomfortable and self-concsious and for some it was too much so they turned their backs on him in self-righteous anger.

His Apostles picked up his habits and style of teaching and offended many with their Teachings. Some Apostle were martyred, gave up their lives for their faith rather than compromise it.

 

[LEMAITRE]

I just wanted to add that Mitt Romney does not have a good ‘pro-life’ record as Massachussets Governor as well. I would not have voted as my conscious on Catholic non-negotiable Doctrine does guide my decision-making and prefer to make fully informed decisions rather than sticking by Party lines.

Here in Australia I don’t have a choice as voting is compulsory under legislation however Australia’s Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is a committed practicing Catholic who was a trainee Priest at one stage so that decision would be easier to make but I may just change my mind because yesterday Mr Abbott said that “the sanctity of the confessional should not exempt priests from reporting child abuse” in response to the Royal Commission we are going to have into Child Sex Abuse by the clergy. Obviously Cardinal Pell disagrees with him on that point.

 

[triumphguy]

Oh yes she can. The only reason she hasn’t in the last 60 years is because of TAX LAWS. Hear that? TAX LAWS. Not moral law, or canon law, but tax law. The church does have the freedom to tell us how to vote.

Even if you might not be able to vote just on his abortion stance, what about his religious freedom stance, or gay marriage stance?

IF that is true then this shocking question leaped to mind: What kind of Church keeps quiet because of tax laws?

 

[superamazingman]

IF that is true then this shocking question leaped to mind: What kind of Church keeps quiet because of tax laws?

We elect Obama.

 

[Candescent]

My own feeling is that the morals of politicians are usually a fairly accurate reflection of the morals of society. Given that Western society, morally, is more or less going down the tubes (I include Canada and Western Europe in this), it’s not surprising that abortion continues to be essentially on-demand. Society has spoken, and society has decided that it wants no consequences attached to its sexual activity.

ISTM that this is a symptom of a society that is slowly chucking its moral values overboard, and, surprise surprise, that is a symptom of mainstream religion bleeding members. People have lost faith, become unchurched, and with that, have lost their moral compasses.

ISTM as well that expecting our politicians to go against the grain of the people that elect them is an unrealistic expectation. We really need to get to the root of the issue, and the root of the issue is re-evangelizing (not to be confused with proselytizing).

And the place to look first to evangelize, is in the mirror. We as Catholics need to become beacons that attract people back to (or for the first time to…) the Catholic faith. We also need to dialogue with other Christian groups to build alliances on life issues. That implies that ecumenism is important at least at some level. No surprise that the Church espouses this as well.

l.

Some very good and frightening points. Thank you for this post, it really helped me put things into the right perspective to move on…

 

[superamazingman]

I just wanted to add that Mitt Romney does not have a good ‘pro-life’ record as Massachussets Governor as well. I would not have voted as my conscious on Catholic non-negotiable Doctrine does guide my decision-making and prefer to make fully informed decisions rather than sticking by Party lines.

Here in Australia I don’t have a choice as voting is compulsory under legislation however Australia’s Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is a committed practicing Catholic who was a trainee Priest at one stage so that decision would be easier to make but I may just change my mind because yesterday Mr Abbott said that “the sanctity of the confessional should not exempt priests from reporting child abuse” in response to the Royal Commission we are going to have into Child Sex Abuse by the clergy. Obviously Cardinal Pell disagrees with him on that point.

Of course, Romney doesn’t have a great record on abortion. But it is far superior to Obama’s, which is why we needed to elect him for damage control. Would he have been a super pro-life president? no. Would he have been 10000% more pro-life than obama? you betcha.

By the way, don’t forget that CCC 2240 says we have an obligation to vote.

 

[LEMAITRE]

Of course, Romney doesn’t have a great record on abortion. But it is far superior to Obama’s, which is why we needed to elect him for damage control. Would he have been a super pro-life president? no. Would he have been 10000% more pro-life than obama? you betcha.

By the way, don’t forget that CCC 2240 says we have an obligation to vote.

An obligation to vote for what? Between what? Choose the lesser evil? Depending on where you are located on the planet.

What do you do when one candidate supports gay marriage but not abortion and the other supports abortion but not gay marriage or worse both support gay marriage and abortion.

No, if it comes down to non-negotiables I will choose a ‘donkey vote’ with a clear mind every time.

 

[superamazingman]

An obligation to vote for what? Between what? Choose the lesser evil? Depending on where you are located on the planet.

You are obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils.

What do you do when one candidate supports gay marriage but not abortion and the other supports abortion but not gay marriage or worse both support gay marriage and abortion.

In that case, as I mentioned above, you would support the lesser of two evils. In the cases you outline above, it’s a prudencial judgement on which one would do the least damage to the cause for pro-life and pro-family.

No, if it comes down to non-negotiables I will choose a ‘donkey vote’ with a clear mind every time.

huh? What’s that mean? Fill us americans in…