What is simply not true is the idea that Catholics can ignore the teaching of the Church on these many topics, and pretend that the explanations and exhortations of the Pope on these topics are of no moment. A Catholic can certainly decide in good conscience that he must vote for one party, but a Catholic in good conscience can also decide that he must vote for the other. To say otherwise is to close one’s eyes to the Church’s teaching.That is simply not true. We have to adhere to doctrine and church teaching, not the personal opinions of church leaders. By your statement, we would all be wrong to oppose child molestation as Cardinal McCarrick clearly supported it. Opinion doesn’t matter. Doctrine and official church teaching do.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. But I think it should always be more persuasive to Catholics’ than JacobF’s opinion.The pope’s opinion is not church teaching.
The teaching of the Church is that Catholics must consider all issues, including those that I raised earlier in the thread. I think that Catholics would be well served by following that teaching, even if you seem to think you can dismiss all but a handful of the Church’s teachings as “opinions.”The pope’s opinion is definitely more important than my opinion, but it is not more important than objective fact, which is what church teaching gives us.
I disagree. Do you think it curious at all that the teachings you call “opinions” and the ones you find binding just happen to line up so nicely with your preferred political opinions?Teaching and opinion are two distinct things. You are trying to elevate opinion to the same level of teaching/doctrine and you are very wrong to do so.
I am sure you believe that. Its obvious we are both set in our beliefs, so I will leave it there. I would continue to urge any Catholic who is unsure about these things to just read the Church’s teaching on voting, which is available on the USCCB website, and to read what Pope Francis and other bishops have had to say on the topic.I haven’t called any teachings or doctrines opinions. My preferred political opinions are the way they are because they align with church teaching.
No. “Taking a stance on immigration” is not taking a position on a specific policy. It is precisely the type of vague, generic reference I have objected to. Beyond that let’s be clear: no personal position taken by a bishop or two can be said to represent “church teaching.” Their prudential opinions are to be seriously considered, but they are in no way to be considered doctrinal.You agree that the bishops take a stance on immigration that you disagree with.
Be specific; cite what was actually said.You know the Pope has directly criticized Trump’s immigration policies.
I’m waiting for specifics; what I’m getting are generalities.But you choose to decide to ignore those things and therefore pretend the GOP’s positions are all consistent with the Church, when they clearly are not.
Yes, you have made vague, generic references before, none of which points to an actual, specific policy that has been proposed.That is just one example. I have pointed to others (whether you admit that or not).
Supporting abortion is contrary to church doctrine; supporting a border wall is not. Supporting euthanasia is contrary to church doctrine; opposing Obamacare is not. Supporting gay “marriage” is contrary to church doctrine; opposition to raising the minimum wage is not. Until you can cite some particular policy the GOP supports that is contrary to church doctrine then your claim is unsupported.Neither party is completely consistent with the Church.
This is true, but since I never said otherwise it is also irrelevant.But it is simply disingenuous for one side to pretend they have the stamp of approval from the Church.
There is nothing wrong with the Past Popes, the Pope, and bishops telling us why we have to believe these things, it is wrong for them to tell us how we have to believe.. I say that the teaching of the Church shows clearly that Catholics have a moral duty to support certain policies.
I think that anyone can read what the Popes have said about care for the poor, immigration, the environment, racial justice, worker’s rights, income inequality, and lots of other issues and see pretty clearly how the parties line up on those issues.
The operative word is “seem.” If something from a bishop seems to contradict Church teaching, it would be best to not rely on your own memory or understanding, but go back to the book, in this case, the Catechism, and see if there really is a contradiction, that is, where the Catechism says “A”, and the bishop says “not A”.The pope and some bishops have their opinions on it and even their opinions seem to run counter to church teaching in some aspects.
I like to remember that re-marriage is also intrinsically evil. In fact, any sex outside of marriage, which cannot end in divorce, is intrinsically evil. Yet neither party has opposed no-fault divorce, sex outside of marriage, or re-marriage in generations.Gay marriage is intrinsically evil. Again, which of the two major parties runs counter to that official church teaching?
Why does the church teaching create a moral duty to follow “certain policies” ?I say that the teaching of the Church shows clearly that Catholics have a moral duty to support certain policies.
From the article: “Pro-life Catholic Democrats are in a particularly difficult situation.” They are indeed inasmuch as their dilemma is so clear. They will find out just how pro-life they are in this election.Condolences to Pro-Life Democrats - Archdiocese of New York
Pro-life Catholic Democrats are in a particularly difficult situation. Catholics are required to make political and voting decisions in accord with the teachings of the Church. Our bishops have been very clear about what issues we must consider. Abortion is at the top of the list. “Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care… But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life” (Living the Gospel of Life 22). Catholics cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate in order to advance that evil agenda. Voting for such a candidate would only be permissible “for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship 35).
Better bold mine. Intent matters in this sentence.Catholics cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate in order to advance that evil agenda.
but that is exactly what you are doing by voting for Biden/Harrisbut this sentence only applies to those who want to keep legalized abortion.
Excuses for who? God? Because if your opinion is that you know what God will think and do, you should drop the “H.”IMHO, there are/will be no excuses
for when the numbers of abortions riseExcuses for who