Let Our Priests Speak Out

  • Thread starter Thread starter chan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chan

Guest
It is time we understand what the meaning of the separation of church and state really means and fight for it. It has nothing to do with churches losing their tax exemptions. It means the government can not force us to join a national religion or church.
Therefore our priests should preach from the pulpit the moral truth which includes WHO to vote for. Or at least teach the choice of the lessor of two evils.
 
It is time we understand what the meaning of the separation of church and state really means and fight for it. It has nothing to do with churches losing their tax exemptions. It means the government can not force us to join a national religion or church.
Therefore our priests should preach from the pulpit the moral truth which includes WHO to vote for. Or at least teach the choice of the lessor of two evils.
Is it not our conscience which tell us about the lessor of two evils?
It is not the preacher to tell us whom he thinks is the lessor of two evils.
Peace, Carlan
 
It is time we understand what the meaning of the separation of church and state really means and fight for it. It has nothing to do with churches losing their tax exemptions. It means the government can not force us to join a national religion or church.
Therefore our priests should preach from the pulpit the moral truth which includes WHO to vote for. Or at least teach the choice of the lessor of two evils.
It isn’t the separation of church and state that causes them to avoid telling us for whom to vote; it’s a requirement for tax-exempt charities that they not participate in political activities. If we want to tell people you have to vote for whomever, we can; but we have to give up our tax-exempt status to do so.

In any event, it is not consistent with Catholic theology to have our priests tell us how to vote. We are expected to form and follow our own consciences, not mindlessly follow the dictates of our priests.
 
Is it not our conscience which tell us about the lessor of two evils?
It is not the preacher to tell us whom he thinks is the lessor of two evils.
Peace, Carlan
Archbishop Chaput,stated recently,loud and clear,that as a Catholic he could not vote for Obama.Due to his support for abortion,same sex marriage,stem cell research.Add to that he stated that while Jesus calls upon us to care for the poor,Jesus never stated that that care should come from the Gov’t by way of taxation.For a Catholic to vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil is to be complicit in that evil.To vote for or against someone due to their stance on taxation is purely prudential.seems very clear to me,as a Catholic how I should vote my conscience against Obama and his destructive,evil policies.
 
Archbishop Chaput,stated recently,loud and clear,that as a Catholic he could not vote for Obama.Due to his support for abortion,same sex marriage,stem cell research.Add to that he stated that while Jesus calls upon us to care for the poor,Jesus never stated that that care should come from the Gov’t by way of taxation.***For a Catholic to vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil is to be complicit in that evil.***To vote for or against someone due to their stance on taxation is purely prudential.seems very clear to me,as a Catholic how I should vote my conscience against Obama and his destructive,evil policies.
Just to quibble: For a Catholic to vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil because of that evil is to be complicit in that evil.

If the two candidates running for clerk of the court are (A) a very experienced lawyer who plans to sell his practice and retire, and his platform is speeding up the court’s docket and modernizing the court’s file system (but he is pro-choice); and (B) a lawyer fresh out of law school who has never practiced, and he has acknowledged that he just wants to use the office as a stepping-stool to higher office, and he has been shown to know nothing about the office he’s running for (but he is pro-life); then – since the clerk of the court doesn’t make policy regarding abortion – a faithful Catholic can safely vote for the experienced lawyer over the inexperienced one, notwithstanding their respective positions on abortion.

Similarly, I can see how a faithful Catholic in any given election (NB: I really am not speaking of anyone in particular here) might conclude that a given candidate’s asserted position, whether prolife or prochoice, isn’t really true – that is, that the candidate is lying about his/her abortion-related plans to garner votes; then base his/her vote accordingly.
 
Archbishop Chaput,stated recently,loud and clear,that as a Catholic he could not vote for Obama.Due to his support for abortion,same sex marriage,stem cell research.Add to that he stated that while Jesus calls upon us to care for the poor,Jesus never stated that that care should come from the Gov’t by way of taxation.For a Catholic to vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil is to be complicit in that evil.To vote for or against someone due to their stance on taxation is purely prudential.seems very clear to me,as a Catholic how I should vote my conscience against Obama and his destructive,evil policies.
You put words in the good Archbishop’s mouth. He did not say “Obama” at any time. Here are his words quoted for real.
“I can only speak in terms of my own personal views. I certainly can’t vote for somebody who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion,” he said.
I’m not a Republican and I’m not a Democrat. I’m registered as an independent, because I don’t think the church should be identified with one party or another. As an individual and voter I have deep personal concerns about any party that supports changing the definition of marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, wants to restrict the traditional understanding of religious freedom. Those kinds of issues cause me a great deal of uneasiness.
Chaput responded to the concerns that the Democratic Party continues to advance abortion and had a tough time getting mention of God back in its platform.
“As an individual and voter I have deep personal concerns about any party that supports changing the definition of marriage, supports abortion in all circumstances, wants to restrict the traditional understanding of religious freedom. Those kinds of issues cause me a great deal of uneasiness,” he said.
Chaput did not name a candidate. The interviewer named Obama and the Democratic party and he responded to that. But you will notice that he used more general terms that would tend to encompass more than just specific people or parties.
 
The last time the Church told its people how to vote in an election was in Milan, Italy in the late 1940’s, when it looked like the Communists were going to take over the government. The local Bishop threatened to excommunicate anyone who voted for the Communists. Well, the Church won some and lost some. The Communists were not elected on a national level, but the communists won the city government in Milan. And, there was no mention of excommunication in Northern Italy after the election.
It would not be wise for anything similar to happen here. There are too many enemies of the Church who would relish taking us to court and making us pay taxes through the nose on everything, including the kitchen sink in the rectory!
 
Just to quibble: For a Catholic to vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil because of that evil is to be complicit in that evil.

If the two candidates running for clerk of the court are (A) a very experienced lawyer who plans to sell his practice and retire, and his platform is speeding up the court’s docket and modernizing the court’s file system (but he is pro-choice); and (B) a lawyer fresh out of law school who has never practiced, and he has acknowledged that he just wants to use the office as a stepping-stool to higher office, and he has been shown to know nothing about the office he’s running for (but he is pro-life); then – since the clerk of the court doesn’t make policy regarding abortion – a faithful Catholic can safely vote for the experienced lawyer over the inexperienced one, notwithstanding their respective positions on abortion.

Similarly, I can see how a faithful Catholic in any given election (NB: I really am not speaking of anyone in particular here) might conclude that a given candidate’s asserted position, whether prolife or prochoice, isn’t really true – that is, that the candidate is lying about his/her abortion-related plans to garner votes; then base his/her vote accordingly.
Correct,however,Obama has both as a senator and president been the most pro abortion record in history.add to that his personal take on unintended pregnancy…If his daughters made a “mistake”,hevwouldn’tvwant them punished with a baby.That speaks columns about his personal philosophy.:eek:
 
Just for the record, the Establishment Clause has NO mention of ‘separation of church and state.’
 
Carlan,Any good that you may think Obama has done is cancelled out by the intrinsic evils he supports. Not sure why you stubbornly cling to the fact that it is o.k. tofor him as a faithful Catholic:shrug: the ACA will be neither affordable,nor will it provide the quality care so many have been deceived into believing it to be. No panacea for sure.:eek:
 
Just to quibble: For a Catholic to vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil because of that evil is to be complicit in that evil.

If the two candidates running for clerk of the court are (A) a very experienced lawyer who plans to sell his practice and retire, and his platform is speeding up the court’s docket and modernizing the court’s file system (but he is pro-choice); and (B) a lawyer fresh out of law school who has never practiced, and he has acknowledged that he just wants to use the office as a stepping-stool to higher office, and he has been shown to know nothing about the office he’s running for (but he is pro-life); then – since the clerk of the court doesn’t make policy regarding abortion – a faithful Catholic can safely vote for the experienced lawyer over the inexperienced one, notwithstanding their respective positions on abortion.

Similarly, I can see how a faithful Catholic in any given election (NB: I really am not speaking of anyone in particular here) might conclude that a given candidate’s asserted position, whether prolife or prochoice, isn’t really true – that is, that the candidate is lying about his/her abortion-related plans to garner votes; then base his/her vote accordingly.
Thank you! Peace, Carlan
 
It is time we understand what the meaning of the separation of church and state really means and fight for it. It has nothing to do with churches losing their tax exemptions. It means the government can not force us to join a national religion or church.
Therefore our priests should preach from the pulpit the moral truth which includes WHO to vote for. Or at least teach the choice of the lessor of two evils.
Is prohibition of church involvement in US politics related to the First Amendment? I thought it was rooted in the tax code. As a 501c3 organization, churches can’t be political. If they give up some of their tax exempt status, however, then they can speak on on politics.
 
Correct,however,Obama has both as a senator and president been the most pro abortion record in history.add to that his personal take on unintended pregnancy…If his daughters made a “mistake”,hevwouldn’tvwant them punished with a baby.That speaks columns about his personal philosophy.:eek:
I did not hear of such a statement from the President.could you supply source ?

Jeanne,I also wish to comment here that my conscious will not allow me to vote for Mr.Romny because ,prior to his running for the nomination he was for Pro-choice, which he had to deny before even being considered as far as the GOP is concerned, and he has also wavered on many other issues. I simply do not trust him to serve the common good of all. Therefore I choose the lesser of the two evils .
Peace, Carlan
 
Connecticut Baptist Church Letter
To: Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America October 7, 1801
Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution.
And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States - and all the world - until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth.
Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you - to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
President Thomas Jefferson’s Response
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States
 
Obama made that statement during his 08csmpaign.If you google Obama and this statement,you will find all the info you need.Again,you find it a better choice to vote for someone who has never wavered in his support for abortion,insofar as allowing babies who surviive a botched abortion to die on the surgical table? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top