Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[colmywaykurtz]

To say we can correct this debacle is overly optimistic. 2700 pages and 15000 pages of regulations. It would be easier to start over with the real issues at hand and focus on real problems instead of creating more.

However the most disingenuous and false portion of your post was the claim that those who support the Catholic consistent life ethic, focus EXCLUSIVELY (YOUR WORDS NOT MINE) on abortion etc

The beauty of Catholic teaching is the consistency and solid foundation. The care for the unborn is matched, if not exceeded by the care for those here on earth. Show me a devout Catholic who says people should die in the streets for lack of healthcare or food. Show me a Catholic organization that turns needy people away.
Lisa

I think it can be made more effective. As a point of departure, it’s crucial. The GOP hasn’t offered anything of anywhere near this magnitude, and the people you’re preparing to vote for won’t, either, if they get back in power and manage to repeal ACA. THEY are the ones I’m referring to, not Catholic relief organizations who, as you say, do a wonderful job of helping people in need.

 

[CMatt25]

Wrong. Gospels encapsulated what was essential in Torah and reframed it all according to different paradigms. By the time of Jesus’ ministry, there had been a shift in emphasis, in terms of what was considered fidelity to the Law. External conformity (and what we would call “litmus tests” for that – or “visible” conformity) had too often superceded what was essential to Torah fidelity. Hence, Jesus calling attention to this in Luke (21:1-4) and Mark (12:41-44). The background prior to the Mark story, for example, focused on corruption operating within the Temple, then venality (the money-changers), and culminated with the question of authority and abuse of authority, with Jesus himself sitting in the Temple and personifying a new Authority while proclaiming the virtuousness of the widow’s contribution, not only for its proportionality, but also what it represented in terms of surrender (faith). Poverty and dependence have a different framework in NT than in OT. This is why it is useless to try to engage in piecemeal interpretations of Scripture passages – cherry picking here and there --, without the historical, linguistic, social, and literary contexts which give them their authentic meaning and spiritual value.

What I find useless is when people place faith and belief in whatever writings, interpretations, contexts, or in whatever else they place faith in, and then proceed to so emphatically bold and underline someone else’s belief as wrong. Maybe though I just don’t need to think I know with such absolute certainty those things which are matters of faith to begin with. But I know I find myself ignoring such people more and more. Probably because I understand we talk of and walk by faith. Not by sight.

 

[CMatt25]

Sure there is! I just saw a pile of dead kids on a street corner because they didn’t have health insurance.

I find it sad someone would make light of the millions upon millions who do not have affordable, adequate health care.

 

[CMatt25]

Splendid! A person with all the answers (like yourself) should have no problem answering my question, which remains unanswered.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What I find useless is when people place faith and belief in whatever writings, interpretations, contexts, or in whatever else they place faith in, and then proceed to so emphatically bold and underline someone else’s belief as wrong.

That is not only a non-Catholic understanding of scripture, it’s a non-Protestant understanding, being that it is thoroughly unscholarly. The interpretation I stated is not “faith and belief,” CMatt. It’s how the experts in scripture study – across several faiths – understand the kerygma of Jesus the Christ. A new kerygma. A refashioning of Torah, a reformed message of tsedeq or righteousness. There’s nothing private about it or particular to me. Scripture interpretation, just like interpretation of other canonical literature in the secular literary canons of the West, the East, etc., comes about through applied methodology with common reference points shared by scholars in a continual line of scholarship – in this case for hundreds of years of applied scholarship. There is actual verifiable objective meaning in these texts.

Other posters take note: CMatt rejects authoritative scriptural scholarship as “useless.” There ya’ go.

 

[Mickey]

That’s not what I was referring to.

Oh…so then you agree that abortion is brutal murder?

And focusing rabidly on junking the current legislation without ever giving it a chance to be corrected and adjusted shows what world YOU live in.

LOL! How many thousands of pages is it? By the time anyone even knows what it is, (except we do know it is the largest tax hike in history), we’ll all be gone. That is reality my friend. I can’t wait until the monstrosity is repealed.

 

[Mickey]

Your post is full of specious arguments and strawmen bursting into flames.

freeimagehosting.net/mazes"><img

 

[Mickey]

Your post is full of specious arguments and strawmen bursting into flames.

freeimagehosting.net/t/mazes.jpg

 

[Mickey]

The GOP hasn’t offered anything of anywhere near this magnitude

Thank God!

 

[Mickey]

Which sometimes gives me just personally a little pause to wonder about the fetus.

And just what is it that you wonder about?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would like to ask a provocative quesiton:

Does anyone, lurking or posting, who does support Obama for a second term, believe that those who do not support Obama are less concerned with the poor than Obama supporters are? And not just in theory or in mind, but demonstrably less concerned? Or that opposition to Obama can be translated to poverty (and social justice in general) being a less prioritized issue for such voters?

I ask this because the rationale for supporting a Democratic platform in general (whoever the candidate) is often “concern for the poor.” The logical implication is that those not in support of such a party or candidate have other priorities.

Just checking…

 

[estesbob]

This statement holds no water whatsoever. For example the Old Testament spoke of giving food to those with no property, to the orphans, the widows, the foreigner. Deut 14:29 tells you they shall get all they need and the Lord will bless you. Sounds similar to what Jesus spoke in Matt 25. Help those in need and you shall be blessed. Giving to those in need was an “old message”, was not “News” and yet He still talked about it.

Why should we accept your personal interpretation if Scripture?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why should we accept your personal interpretation if Scripture?

Just FYI, Bob: CMatt apparently believes that all interpretations of Scripture are “personal” and based on “faith and belief” and have no objective or collective reference points. So apparently all those schooled in the understanding of Scripture have no value whatsoever in terms of understanding its concrete meanings.

Except that that simply flies in the face of all of the Christian and even Jewish faith traditions. There is indeed a way authenticaly to determine meaning, and it does not reduce to “faith and belief.”

 

[Nec5]

What I find useless is when people place faith and belief in whatever writings, interpretations, contexts, or in whatever else they place faith in, and then proceed to so emphatically bold and underline someone else’s belief as wrong.

Well, you just did precisely that in your statement.

You’re arguing that my belief that “x is right and y is wrong” is wrong because there is no right or wrong. But notice that you made such a judgment yourself.

It is one thing to intellectually entertain competing and contrary thoughts while sorting them out; it’s quite another to insist that they can never be sorted out so no judgment is possible.

 

[estesbob]

That’s not what I was referring to. The difference between the collective violence of abortion and the collective violence against the “already-born” in the form of lack of decent healthcare and financial catastrophes wrought by the current healthcare system is NOT that black and white. Both are wrong, and the one probably causes more of the other than you might think. This arbitrary shunning of the one and exclusively focusing on the other is cold-hearted and callous, too. And focusing rabidly on junking the current legislation without ever giving it a chance to be corrected and adjusted shows what world YOU live in.

So a Catholic can vote for Obama in spite of his promotion if unrestrictedtaxpayer funded abortion on demand because he instituted a health care plan condemnedxby the Church and imposed mandates on the Church so egregious 43 Catholic instutiions sued him and Bishops unanimously decalred a two week periid of prayer, fasting and reflection to get it overturned???, The mental gymnastics required to be a Catholic Democrat get more bizzare by thecday.

 

[onmyknees]

Patrick, I suppose “strong” can have different connotations for people but I certainly never claimed it. It was very nice of you to say the word after however and I appreciate it. I’ve been on the verge of attending another church so your timing is interesting. The thing is I’m not so cold hearted and I’ve never said I believe Jesus would be fine with me aborting a fetus if I had a uterus. In fact I’ve repeatedly said I would not have one. What I’m not convinced of is that Jesus would not understand I live in a country of plural beliefs and views on this very difficult, very personal and private decision for many women. And that the secular law reflects this. This includes women whom before exercising their legal right to choose, I have no doubt pray to God on their decisions along with consulting their pastors or spiritual guides (non Catholic of course), their drs, family, and others. **** We’re talking about the same Jesus who gave us free will and the word “abortion” isn’t even found in Scripture.**** The word “poor” is however numerous times as well as discussion of caring for the sick and the homeless, the hungry, the prisoner. So are things like “blessed are the peacemakers” and the rich having difficulty getting into heaven. It’s an issue though in which I have never taken lightly and is a difficult one for me. As I am convinced it is for most, if not all, pro choice folks. We are not these evil pro abortion, “death to babies” people we get depicted as by many with an opposite POV. This issue is simply like no other to me. That’s why I don’t go about with the slavery and Holocaust comparisons nor buy into them. That’s just how I look at it and I don’t expect people here to agree. I don’t even expect people with another POV to understand although I personally understand both sides. I’m not trying to win over anyone to my POV. It hasn’t though been without much prayer and contemplation that I arrived at my current thinking. Thank you for the kindness and respect you showed me in your post. God bless you. Peace.

What about this in the Didache?

The Didache, a second-century catechism for young converts, states, “Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant” (Didache 2.2). Clement of Alexandria maintained that “those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus, but of the whole human race as well” (Paedogus 2:10.96.1).

Defending Christians before Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177, Athenagoras argued, “What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? …The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God’s care” (A Plea for the Christians, 35.6).

Tertullian said, “It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder” (Apology, 9.4). Basil the Great affirmed, “Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons” (Canons, 188.2). Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13). Augustine warned against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15). Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysotom were among the many other prominent theologians and church leaders who condemned abortion as the killing of children. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger comments, “It is really remarkable how uniform and how pronounced was the early Christian opposition to abortion.” [10]

 

[CMatt25]

That is not only a non-Catholic understanding of scripture, it’s a non-Protestant understanding, being that it is thoroughly unscholarly. The interpretation I stated is not “faith and belief,” CMatt. It’s how the experts in scripture study – across several faiths – understand the kerygma of Jesus the Christ. A new kerygma. A refashioning of Torah, a reformed message of tsedeq or righteousness. There’s nothing private about it or particular to me. Scripture interpretation, just like interpretation of other canonical literature in the secular literary canons of the West, the East, etc., comes about through applied methodology with common reference points shared by scholars in a continual line of scholarship – in this case for hundreds of years of applied scholarship. There is actual verifiable objective meaning in these texts.

Other posters take note: CMatt rejects authoritative scriptural scholarship as “useless.” There ya’ go.

What I reject is that in doing their scholarly work in the realm of faith, the so called experts might not be wrong on something. Unless they actually lived during the times. But I dont mind if you need to put my faith down. I know none of us truly know with 100% absolute certainty matters of faith. We might believe we do but that’s different. That’s why it’s called faith to begin with and I’m just going to try to be humble as I walk in mine.

 

[rlg94086]

What about this in the Didache?

The Didache, a second-century catechism for young converts, states, “Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant” (Didache 2.2). Clement of Alexandria maintained that “those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus, but of the whole human race as well” (Paedogus 2:10.96.1).

Defending Christians before Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177, Athenagoras argued, “What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? …The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God’s care” (A Plea for the Christians, 35.6).

Tertullian said, “It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder” (Apology, 9.4). Basil the Great affirmed, “Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons” (Canons, 188.2). Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13). Augustine warned against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15). Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysotom were among the many other prominent theologians and church leaders who condemned abortion as the killing of children. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger comments, “It is really remarkable how uniform and how pronounced was the early Christian opposition to abortion.” [10]

Don’t bring up “extra-Biblical” attitudes from early Christians. They were all rubes who had no understanding of what Christ really meant. It would take hundreds of years before Protestant “scholars” could let us know how to interpret the Scripture written while the early Christians were being instructed directly by the Apostles.

 

[CMatt25]

And just what is it that you wonder about?

Based on the OT verses I referred to? Whether the fetus is equal to the life of the mother.

 

[LisaA]

For those who disdain the words of the Church Fathers but love ancient Greece, the Hippocratic Oath, 5th Century BC:

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Funny how we think we are so enlightened about human rights and long before there were ultrasounds and intrauterine surgery, the humanity of the unborn was recognized.

Really appreciated the post on the early teachings by Church Fathers on the subject of abortion. Someone should send this to Mrs Pelosi who is completely confused on the subject.

Lisa