EU president’s praise for Catholic teaching welcomed as bishops urge citizens to vote in elections to stop "nationalist threat"

[Vouthon]

Recollect that many a person in history has used Christianity to further their gains.

But why should we imagine that Juncker is one of these people sans any evidence to back up what is otherwise unfounded suspision of the man?

This entire discussion stemmed from Juncker saying positive things about his Catholic Faith, it’s contribution to the foundation of the European Union and his call for Europeans to remember those Christian roots, ironically.

I guess he’d be condemned if he’d said “nothing” (omission) and for saying something. Looks like he can’t win either way.

 

[Cathoholic]

Lou2U . . .

Juncker is not sincere in his Catholicism? I’d appreciate reading it.

What I would appreciate reading Lou2U, if you want to criticize my post, is criticism based upon what I said.

 

[Lou2U]

Lou2U . . .

Juncker is not sincere in his Catholicism? I’d appreciate reading it.

I was referring to post #43, where you said “exactly right on…and everyone knows it” in response to Josie’s post that she was being logical in her scepticism regarding Juncker. That is why I asked you both if you have any sources showing reasons to be sceptical of Juncker. My post to you was not a criticism, rather an attempt to gain clarity. If I misunderstood what you meant in your post to Josie, I can only say it was unintentional.

Edit - post #43, apologies. On my phone it’s not so easy to see the number of posts.

 

[josie_L]

Whether you think that judgmental of me is immaterial, I do not think it is. I am simply sceptical of his touting of Catholic doctrine as some sort of affirmation that he has aligned himself in all ways to Catholic teachings.

And I say this because most Catholic politicians don’t and I haven’t seen evidence of his touting other Catholic doctrines.

I question it.

 

[josie_L]

Then flag my post.

 

[josie_L]

I’m glad that he has but I’m sceptical as to the reasons why.

 

[Vouthon]

Fair enough.

I just want to note that:

(A) Juncker never said this nor denied that “that he has aligned himself in all ways to Catholic teachings”.

(B) No one has said this either because you’d have to ask Juncker himself.

In light of the above, I just don’t see what the point is in discussing what we don’t know about Juncker as opposed to what we do know, which is that he regards himself as a “fervent advocate” of Catholic Social Doctrine, regards it as foundational to the EU and that (in his mind) the project of European integration is especially indebted to Christian inspirations through it’s founders, and that he thinks we should apply the church’s social doctrine more thoroughly in Europe and “rediscover” it’s values.

Why can’t we discuss this, which is what we do know?

We also do know, as per my OP, that Catholic bishops appreciated Juncker’s intervention and that the European bishops conference has called for voters in this month’s EU elections not to “turn away” from the Union towards the allure of populist national independence, as per the church in Europe’s long-standing support of European integration.

These things we know and the thread is actually about this.

 

[Vouthon]

Not to mention nauseatingly tedious given that, since arguing from absence of evidence is unfalsifiable in principle, one is incapable of rationally proving, disproving or meaningfully critiquing it - meaning that fruitful debate is rendered theoretically and practically impossible.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vouthon . . .

I guess he’d be condemned if he’d said “nothing” (omission) and for saying something.

.

That is a partial truth Vouthon.

Sins of omission are very important Vouthon.

And very public sins of omission are very publicly important.

It is seen as phony because of Juncker’s overt public sin of omission on a very important part of the faith.

I stand by everything I said.

When President Trump has Christian leaders say good things on his behalf and people say he is politicizing this, I don’t jump in to say President Trump is a saint.

I openly admit there are things worthy to call President Trump out on.

But apparently it touches a nerve for you when the tables are turned and you can’t admit it.

Juncker is a Big Government guy and so I expect you to support him. Fine.

But don’t pretend because he MAY have some aspects of Catholicism correct, that this means he is a proverbial full package.

That would be phony. And everyone knows it is phony (not everyone would ADMIT it though).

Especially when there ARE manifest serious sins of omission.

Now I want to urge you to get that thread started so you and I can get busy defending the Catholic Faith.

 

[Cathoholic]

The problem with this is, it CAN be proven false.

But maybe you do not know about sins of omission?

 

[Cathoholic]

In that respect he certainly represents a figure I could rally behind were I a Catholic in good standing.

Look. I get that and I respect that.

But there is more to the sphere of politicians and coopting the faith.

Even when good people like the Bishop compliment him in an area (and I don’t want to detract from anything good Juncker has done or is doing).

 

[Cathoholic]

If I would have said otherwise, you could just have accused me of not just asking.

 

[josie_L]

I’m sure while you’re patting your backs for your intellectually superior mind, I did what you proposed, and I came across this:

The European Parliament passed a resolution on March 10 which promotes access to abortion as a fundamental right.

The resolution, based on a report of the Belgian Socialist member of European Parliament (MEP), Marc Tarabella (the so called “Tarabella Report”), says that women should have sovereignty over their sexual and reproductive health.

But, on this issue, the report acknowledges the right of EU member states to determine their own policies.

In some EU member states, including Ireland, Poland and Malta, abortions are not completely legalized.

The resolution passed with 441 for and 205 against.

https://euranetplus-inside.eu/europ...-right-and-the-greek-threats-towards-germany/

This was in 2015 while Juncker was president.

 

[josie_L]

Then why waste your time replying to me?? Quite ludicrous wouldn’t you say?

 

[josie_L]

I NEVER made the CLAIM it was TRUE.

 

[Vouthon]

I’m sure while you’re patting your backs for your intellectually superior mind

No one here is claiming to be intellectually superior.

But thank you for raising this non-binding resolution that Juncker had nothing to do with because it didn’t emanate from the Commission (which is the EU executive).

As per it being non-binding, it has absolutely no force because EU institutions have no competence over family law (including access to abortion), nor does this tell us what Juncker personally thinks because he isn’t in charge of the parliament.

Plus, the Parliament cannot initiate legislation - it amends or rejects legislation that the Commission has put forward.

Your article itself notes the point I made earlier, that under EU law - abortion law is a reserved matter for member states to legislate, over which the EU has no say:

European Parliament Adopts Report Calling Abortion a "Fundamental Right" - LifeNews.com

The European Parliament (EP) today passed a resolution adopting the “Tarabella Report” which promotes access to abortion as a fundamental right and as part of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) but also affirmed the right of EU Member States to determine national policy on SRHR...

www.lifenews.com

The European Parliament (EP) today passed a resolution…which promotes access to abortion as a fundamental right and as part of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) but also affirmed the right of EU Member States to determine national policy on SRHR issues. The EP has followed a long-standing principle of subsidiarity that on the issue of abortion, the EP does not have “competence” deferring to individual governments to determine policy.

EU parliaments come and go with elections. A new parliament is about to be elected this month. Here’s what the previous EU Parliament did in 2013:

European Parliament Again Rejects Bill Declaring Abortion a Human Right - LifeNews.com

For the second time in two months, the European Parliament rejected a report that recommended that EU nations declare abortion to be a human right and to make abortion available within all public health systems of member countries. Adoption of the report would have placed more pressure on...

www.lifenews.com

For the second time in two months, the European Parliament rejected a report that recommended that EU nations declare abortion to be a human right and to make abortion available within all public health systems of member countries.

European Parliament Again Rejects Abortion as a Human Right - Lozier Institute

This Tuesday, December 10, which is interestingly enough Human Rights Day, the European Parliament once again voted on the controversial Report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, which would classify abortion as a fundamental human right. Despite the intense lobbying of the proposed...

lozierinstitute.org

Just like US congresses change every few years in terms of which party, Democrat or Republican, has a greater share of seats after an election; the same applies to the EU Parliament. No two parliaments are exactly the same in any five year period because that’s the nature of democracy - parties lose and gain seats, thus changing the dynamics of the parliament.

But the principle of subsidiarity outlined above, is one of the bedrocks of EU constitutional law derived from Catholic Social Doctrine, and it’s going nowhere.

Also, your article is wrong to say that abortion is “not completely legalized” in Malta. It’s actually banned in Malta and will continue to remain illegal in this particular member state of the EU because that’s what Maltese voters want.

 

[josie_L]

I am well aware it is non-binding, I can read, my point is that they even bothered to pass a resolution affirming a women’s right to abort their child, regardless of it being non-binding.

The majority in the E.U. parliament were for it (440) and so I ask as president where did he stand on this issue/resolution, i.e., shouldn’t this have been an opportune time to highlight Catholic doctrine??

 

[Vouthon]

I am well aware it is non-binding, I can read, my point is that they passed a resolution affirming a women’s right to abort their child, regardless of it being binding.

To be precise, the “resolution” wasn’t on abortion specifically.

Access to abortion was very briefly (as in one part of a sentence) referred to in a huge, thousands of words long report on equality between men and women, which passed.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the MEPs agreed with every iota of the report and they all knew that it was a non-binding resolution and not a law that would have any real world effect. No mainstream media even picked up in 2015 that this report was about abortion because it wasn’t, that and other matters were basically footnotes in a much longer treatise.

And the same resolution confirmed that sexual health, abortion and family law were member state competencies over which the EU has zero policy and doesn’t claim to have any.

Two years previously, the prior EU Parliament before the 2014 EU election rejected a report, TWICE, to make into a non-binding resolution that was solely about abortion as a fundamental right.

I note this only for accuracy.

As for Juncker, he is only meant to express opinions on matters within his policy remit. If he starts giving opinions on areas that are member state reserved privileges under EU law in his official capacity as Commission President, he’ll be in violation of the powers accorded to him by the member states under the founding treaties.

So, it is prudent of him to stick to the things that he can actually legislate on.

Since non-binding resolutions are legally meaningless, I can’t see Juncker even bothering with them since he’s got real legislation to pass to the parliament that actually has direct effect and applicability for over 500 million Europeans across the continent.

 

[josie_L]

I’m going to keep digging, but I found this article which seems to contradict what you earlier said about Juncker speaking out against communism:

"European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker has opened a series of exhibitions in Karl Marx’s hometown of Trier.

The sculpture of Marx has proved somewhat controversial but Jean-Claude Juncker spoke in positive terms about him.

“Karl Marx was a philosopher, who thought into the future had creative aspirations,” he said.

“Today he stands for things, which he is not responsible for and which he didn’t cause, because many of the things he wrote down were redrafted into the opposite.”

The huge bronze figure is mounted on a pedestal directly in front of the former Marx family home. Chinese President Xi J(name removed by moderator)ing also praised him.

Juncker opens exhibition to Karl Marx

Exhibits include a bronze statue of Marx donated by China to mark the 200th anniversary of his birth.

www.euronews.com

How does this mentality/praise coincide with Church teaching vis a vis marx/marxism/socialism???

 

[josie_L]

I never said that he was responsible, but what does the Church say vis a vis marxism/socialism?

I’m thinking specifically of encyclicals.