LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Trump is not oppressing them. But they are being oppressed.LeafByNiggle:
What oppression are they facing under Trump?
- Status
C
c4csp
Guest
Is that a policy in place causing that oppression you speak of?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Trump’s biggest impact is not due to his policies but to his abuse of the bully pulpit (i.e. social media and rallies).LeafByNiggle:
Is that a policy in place causing that oppression you speak of?
C
c4csp
Guest
Thank you for your honesty.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
And then declaring that theirs is THE Catholic position for voters in a particular election, so anyone who doesn’t just accept their direction and vote accordingly is a lesser Catholic, at best.
Strangely, within the western world this polarisation seems to be peculiar to US Catholics. Other countries do have sharp divisions within the Catholic community on how to vote, but it’s not common to wield the “Real Catholics vote for xxx” card. I don’t know about South America and Eastern Europe, and would be curious to know. Although, if, as you inform us, “coercion” has been firmly rejected by the Church, then it would seem that it’s not permissible anywhere.
Last edited:
C
christofirst
Guest
Fancy meeting you in this thread! 
It sounds like possibly Catholics behave more civilly where you are, even when they disagree, at least I hope so. Here, I see many of my fellow Catholics who apparently think that having what they consider to be the correct prolife passion allows them to belittle or condemn their fellow Catholics, as an act of charity, of course.
I’m admittedly a little uncomfortable coming across here as an apparent apologist for our Democratic party in our upcoming election. They certainly aren’t perfect, I’m the first to admit, but I sincerely find them preferable to the alternative, the incumbent, for a number of reasons. That part is my decision, and I’m not trying to sway anyone else’s decision.
What is not my personal choice, however, and what we keep going round and about in this thread, is the fact that even our Democratic party, with all its flaws, is an allowable choice which we can indeed make in good conscience. We are not obliged to be single-issue voters. Yes, we can be single-issue voters, but no, we don’t have to be. And there is more than one way to seek to remedy that single preeminent issue of abortion anyway, but in fact there are other issues which must be considered as well. Our Conference of Catholic bishops, representing the Church, have not and will not endorse any particular candidate or party. And so we can even vote for a pro-choice candidate if our reason for doing so is not because of their pro-choice stance, but rather in spite of it. Sorry for making you endure my little lesson, but around here we think that if we repeat something often enough, others will eventually be convinced.
I don’t know if you have a Church document like our “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” where you are, but I notice here we like to pick out the key phrases that seem to support our cause, while ignoring or trying to explain away the passages with which we disagree. Others of us criticize or even seem to dismiss the document outright, as though it isn’t perhaps Catholic enough in the right way.
It sounds like possibly Catholics behave more civilly where you are, even when they disagree, at least I hope so. Here, I see many of my fellow Catholics who apparently think that having what they consider to be the correct prolife passion allows them to belittle or condemn their fellow Catholics, as an act of charity, of course.I’m admittedly a little uncomfortable coming across here as an apparent apologist for our Democratic party in our upcoming election. They certainly aren’t perfect, I’m the first to admit, but I sincerely find them preferable to the alternative, the incumbent, for a number of reasons. That part is my decision, and I’m not trying to sway anyone else’s decision.
What is not my personal choice, however, and what we keep going round and about in this thread, is the fact that even our Democratic party, with all its flaws, is an allowable choice which we can indeed make in good conscience. We are not obliged to be single-issue voters. Yes, we can be single-issue voters, but no, we don’t have to be. And there is more than one way to seek to remedy that single preeminent issue of abortion anyway, but in fact there are other issues which must be considered as well. Our Conference of Catholic bishops, representing the Church, have not and will not endorse any particular candidate or party. And so we can even vote for a pro-choice candidate if our reason for doing so is not because of their pro-choice stance, but rather in spite of it. Sorry for making you endure my little lesson, but around here we think that if we repeat something often enough, others will eventually be convinced.
I don’t know if you have a Church document like our “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” where you are, but I notice here we like to pick out the key phrases that seem to support our cause, while ignoring or trying to explain away the passages with which we disagree. Others of us criticize or even seem to dismiss the document outright, as though it isn’t perhaps Catholic enough in the right way.
T
ThomasMT
Guest
Prayer yields more grace when its merits aren’t wasted on cheap lash-outs.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
Not a problem! Well written, and well thought through.
A pleasure to read, in fact.
We have an Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, but a quick search shows me only guides from particular dioceses for elections. I can’t be sure, but I think that when I’ve searched for guidance in voting, maybe on particular issues, google has taken me to your “Forming Consciences” guide. As I recall, I was impressed and it is clearly non-partisan and can’t be read as a single-issue guide.
All the best from Oz!
ps. We do have a similar problem here with our historically left/liberal party becoming increasingly “progressive”. That party, the Labor Party, once drew most of the “Catholic vote” because of its working class and Irish roots but modern Australian Catholics are more evenly split. The rightist “Liberal Party” (sic!) was more Tory but even that party has drifted to the left so the distinctions are fine. Single issue voters often don’t have a clear choice. All parties seem to be drifting to economically right, culturally left.
Last edited:
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
pps. I thought that a particularly good comment.
The point of democracy is that everyone gets their own say (and an equal say) and can weigh the issues in their mind according to their own conscience.
In the end, the majority rule because there is no better alternative, politically.
eg. Someone likes candidate A’s policies, but someone else finds him or her untrustworthy.
Who is to say what the “Catholic” decision is?
F
fide
Guest
Watch the EWTN video on Saul Alinsky, to learn of his playbook/plans for radical leftists to guide them to the take-overs of the Church, the country, the world. He is the “community organizer” guru for the leftists of today and yesterday. There’s a lot out there on Alisnky - he’s important - very important - to understand if you really, honestly, sincerely want to understand the gravely dangerous (and dark) trajectory the modern “progressives” have taken.
And the “progressive” ideology has found influential places in the Democrat party, a much less influential foothold among a few in the Republican Party, and a gravely concerning place in the Church, I groan to say. This ideology is driven by evil - under the guise of compassion for the poor - but the “compassion” is only one more tool of deceit to advance the cause at the expense of the “victims” they exploit and keep poor to keep exploiting. There is no other way to say it.
edited to add:
I see the video is to be broadcast live - free - on EWTN,
Sat. 9/26 4 PM (Eastern, I think), and again:
Tues 9/29 4 AM.
See the EWTN Schedule for times. The Schedule says, “All times adjusted to match your computer’s time zone setting.”
Last edited:
C
christofirst
Guest
Alright, but then I would ask you to study or watch a documentary on Roy Cohn, the notoriously unscrupulous lawyer who by all accounts was very influential on the style and mindset of our current president. Or Norman Vincent Peale, who reportedly shaped the president’s religious views, but whose teachings are also in many ways incompatible for Catholics.
I have read that Saul Alinsky was influential in his day, yes, and that some of his teachings were too radical. I have not read anywhere that Joe Biden personally agrees with Saul Alinsky, despite Biden having worked with others who did learn from Alinsky.
I have read that Saul Alinsky was influential in his day, yes, and that some of his teachings were too radical. I have not read anywhere that Joe Biden personally agrees with Saul Alinsky, despite Biden having worked with others who did learn from Alinsky.
Last edited:
F
fide
Guest
That is easily answered in words, harder to apply to individual practice. Many can say, “Oh yeh! That’s me alright!. I’m good.”:
The Catholic decision is well-formed by the living Holy Spirit in an authentically submissive and fervent soul, who is knowledgeable in the Holy Faith and Sacred Tradition of the Church, selfless and seeking only the holy will of God in all things.
F
fide
Guest
Biden’s astounding professions of being a faithful Catholic prove to me that his trustworthiness in any important statements is zero. If he would lie before God about matters of God, what can he be trusted with? Does he even know what he is saying, half the time?
Yesterday he agreed with K Harris’s Fraudian slip (yes, I know how to spell “Sigmund Freud”) - she referred to the coming (she hopes) “Harris - Biden administration”, her in 1st place, he in 2nd.
Biden also slipped to say “the Harris-Biden administration”! Is he always merely reading what an aide put into his teleprompter??? Is he so used to parroting the party line, that he no longer even cares what he “stands” for? He is a truly frightening candidate.
C
christofirst
Guest
I suspect there will be more slips of the tongue between now and the election. A slip of the tongue does not necessarily reveal a person’s character. An experienced con man, on the other hand, almost always speaks with confidence, even when he’s contradicting something he said only a short time ago.
F
fide
Guest
All a con man needs are victims who want to hear his lies. He doesn’t need to be clever - just skilled at pandering to people’s weaknesses.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Wow! Thank you so much for linking that video. It is awesome!!
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The Diocese of La Crosse has commented on Father Altman and his videos:
Here is the entire text of the letter from the Diocese:
Diocese of La Cross:
Here is the entire text of the letter from the Diocese:
Diocese of La Cross:
Last edited:
C
christofirst
Guest
I get it. Fr. Altman is a proud conservative and a Trump supporter. He quoted from Cardinal Newman, Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Sheen, Pope Pius X and Cardinal Sarah in his video. Missing, I noticed, was anything from the USCCB, his own bishop, or Pope Francis. The USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” teaching on voting has already been quoted and linked here many times. Here is a quote from Gaudete et Exsultate, Rejoice and be glad, from Pope Francis. When I read this, I come away with a clear conscience that my vote for the Democratic candidate, especially in this upcoming election, is not sinful. Again, there is more than one way to right the wrongs and to promote the common good in our nation and world, and more than one issue at stake. I still see the Democratic candidate as the better choice.
“The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there were other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.”
“The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there were other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.”
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I note that this is the same comment from almost 2 weeks ago that was already discussed in the thread at post #43.
It’s not a new comment on the latest video (not that I’m really expecting the diocese to make another public comment).
- Status