P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Catholics are said not to be single issue voters. That saying conflicts with the idea of ‘proportionate reasons’. When we’re told that we can disagree on certain issues, we’re not being told we’re at liberty to disagree but we cannot consider ourselves correct in those disagreements, or at what level of correctness we may achieve in our disagreement.
No one, that I’ve seen, is ‘opposing the Church’ in this discussion. I believe all, so far, believe abortion is wrong intrinsically. Some of us have sought a definition for what the Pope meant when he wrote ‘proportionate reasons’. Others have added the questioning of the sincerity, and ability to perform, by some politicians.
We all know that, through the Pope, the Church calls for the quality of life for all, from conception to natural death. Those qualities have been listed as concerns for the hungry, homeless, unemployed, uneducated, sick, and unborn, etc. This more than implies many issues to be weighed, in the guiding light of the Church, or our spirituality/faith. Just as no one is opposing the Church, no one is denying the many issues to be weighed.
On these forums many issues are discussed. Those who deny any ‘proportionate reasons’, over the issue of abortion, will state they are at liberty to disagree on most of the other issues, or how those issues are to be approached. I’ve also seen it stated that those issues don’t apply because of their liberty to disagree, in the example of primary elections, when all the candidates are pro-life. That removes any weighing of all issues, which is suspect to others who try and understand how weighing even applies if there is a strict standard to the practice of voting. This all leads to the question of what the Pope meant about using ‘proportionate reasons’? Why didn’t he simply say, ‘a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate, under any circumstances’?
Why hasn’t the Pope called the errors from the last presidential election to reign in those accused of being in such an error as to remove themselves in full communion with the Church? Why isn’t he searching out the lost sheep of the flock?
Those questions are not faulting the Pope, but trying to convey a message interpreted in the absence of such actions. That message being that he gave the guiding instructions and is his hope, belief, and acceptance, that all followed those instructions according to their well formed faith based consciences.
After the last presidential election a priest wrote something to the affect of, Catholics who voted for Obama had placed themselves “outside of the full communion of Christ’s church and under the judgment of divine law.”
That statement was responded too by a statement from the Administrator of the Diocese.
No one, that I’ve seen, is ‘opposing the Church’ in this discussion. I believe all, so far, believe abortion is wrong intrinsically. Some of us have sought a definition for what the Pope meant when he wrote ‘proportionate reasons’. Others have added the questioning of the sincerity, and ability to perform, by some politicians.
We all know that, through the Pope, the Church calls for the quality of life for all, from conception to natural death. Those qualities have been listed as concerns for the hungry, homeless, unemployed, uneducated, sick, and unborn, etc. This more than implies many issues to be weighed, in the guiding light of the Church, or our spirituality/faith. Just as no one is opposing the Church, no one is denying the many issues to be weighed.
On these forums many issues are discussed. Those who deny any ‘proportionate reasons’, over the issue of abortion, will state they are at liberty to disagree on most of the other issues, or how those issues are to be approached. I’ve also seen it stated that those issues don’t apply because of their liberty to disagree, in the example of primary elections, when all the candidates are pro-life. That removes any weighing of all issues, which is suspect to others who try and understand how weighing even applies if there is a strict standard to the practice of voting. This all leads to the question of what the Pope meant about using ‘proportionate reasons’? Why didn’t he simply say, ‘a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate, under any circumstances’?
Why hasn’t the Pope called the errors from the last presidential election to reign in those accused of being in such an error as to remove themselves in full communion with the Church? Why isn’t he searching out the lost sheep of the flock?
Those questions are not faulting the Pope, but trying to convey a message interpreted in the absence of such actions. That message being that he gave the guiding instructions and is his hope, belief, and acceptance, that all followed those instructions according to their well formed faith based consciences.
After the last presidential election a priest wrote something to the affect of, Catholics who voted for Obama had placed themselves “outside of the full communion of Christ’s church and under the judgment of divine law.”
That statement was responded too by a statement from the Administrator of the Diocese.
