Mitt Romney’s campaign calls gay teen bullying report ‘exaggerated’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Birdpreacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes.

Pro-life is an interesting example. An awful lot of Republicans are pro-death penalty. I do not believe that is part of the Catholic pro-life point of view. Being anti-abortion is good, but that doesn’t mean being pro-life.

And, despite the assurances of others that the Republican party doesn’t want to get rid of the “social net” I do not see it in practice. Seems that making money is more important to them than the people who work at their money making companies.

Tom A.
Vote the Boomstick party!
Bruce Campbell for President, George Takei for Vice President
Who are the Democrats trying to get rid of the death penalty?

Bishop Gracida wrote the following for the 2004 election but this is applicable to any election:
Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or AIDS, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
Why Abortion and The Death Penalty Are Worlds Apart

catholicchampion.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/on-rick-perry-why-abortion-and-death.html
Pope Benedict wrote in a letter in 2004 to the US Catholic bishops on Catholic politicians and communion:

“While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment,” he said. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” he added.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/apr/050419a
 
Yes.

Pro-life is an interesting example. An awful lot of Republicans are pro-death penalty. I do not believe that is part of the Catholic pro-life point of view. Being anti-abortion is good, but that doesn’t mean being pro-life.

And, despite the assurances of others that the Republican party doesn’t want to get rid of the “social net” I do not see it in practice. Seems that making money is more important to them than the people who work at their money making companies.

Tom A.
Vote the Boomstick party!
Bruce Campbell for President, George Takei for Vice President
The Church Disagrees with you:

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,”

Cardinal Edmund Burke

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

“How can one morally accept laws that permit the killing of a human being not yet born, but already alive in the mother’s womb? The right to life becomes an exclusive prerogative of adults who even manipulate legislatures in order to carry out their own plans and pursue their own interests.”

Letter to Families , John Paul II, 21 (1994).

“When – concerning areas or ‘realities that involve fundamental ethical duties – legislative or political choices contrary to Christian principles and values are proposed or made, the Magisterium teaches that ‘a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals’.”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life , 4 (2002).
 
. “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” he added.
All this quote does is to point out the obvious: Obama is a unacceptable president and we really have little excuse as catholics voting for him. However, Romney isn’t exactly pro-life as he follows what his church teaches, that abortion may be permitted under certain circumstances:
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Allowing abortion for rape and disabled children is evil. He’s not pro-life if he supports the elective killing of the unborn.
 
Allowing abortion for rape and disabled children is evil. He’s not pro-life if he supports the elective killing of the unborn.
So, if legislation were to come up for vote banning all abortions nationwide, with the exception of rape and unborn children “known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth,” you would oppose that legislation?
 
“When – concerning areas or ‘realities that involve fundamental ethical duties – legislative or political choices contrary to Christian principles and values are proposed or made, the Magisterium teaches that ‘a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals’.”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life , 4 (2002).

When you show me a candidate who agrees with the Magisterium on all matters, then I will accept that there is no option but to vote for him.

Most politicians on the ballot will not vote on abortion rights. I feel very little need to be a single issue voter considering how seldom that issue comes into play.

Tom A.
 
All this quote does is to point out the obvious: Obama is a unacceptable president and we really have little excuse as catholics voting for him. However, Romney isn’t exactly pro-life as he follows what his church teaches, that abortion may be permitted under certain circumstances: Allowing abortion for rape and disabled children is evil. He’s not pro-life if he supports the elective killing of the unborn.
Church leadeers have NEVER said there were circumstances where abortion was licit. What they have said is that if both canidates support abortion a Catholic could vote for the least pro-abortion of the two.

*"You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,

Cardinal Burke*
 
“When – concerning areas or ‘realities that involve fundamental ethical duties – legislative or political choices contrary to Christian principles and values are proposed or made, the Magisterium teaches that ‘a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals’.”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life , 4 (2002).

When you show me a candidate who agrees with the Magisterium on all matters, then I will accept that there is no option but to vote for him.

Most politicians on the ballot will not vote on abortion rights. I feel very little need to be a single issue voter considering how seldom that issue comes into play.

Tom A.
**Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. **For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict
 
“When – concerning areas or ‘realities that involve fundamental ethical duties – legislative or political choices contrary to Christian principles and values are proposed or made, the Magisterium teaches that ‘a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals’.”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life , 4 (2002).

When you show me a candidate who agrees with the Magisterium on all matters, then I will accept that there is no option but to vote for him.

Most politicians on the ballot will not vote on abortion rights. I feel very little need to be a single issue voter considering how seldom that issue comes into play.

Tom A.
Church leadeers have NEVER said there were circumstances where abortion was licit. What they have said is that if both canidates support abortion a Catholic could vote for the least pro-abortion of the two.

*"You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,

Cardinal Burke*
 
Church leadeers have NEVER said there were circumstances where abortion was licit. What they have said is that if both canidates support abortion a Catholic could vote for the least pro-abortion of the two.

*"You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,

Cardinal Burke*
It is, of course, also licit to vote for a thid party candidate or not vote, but neither of those options make sense to me.
 
"You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country,
Are you trying to tell us that there are no pro-life candidates running for president? Because if not, then we can’t vote for Romney. Romney also supports gay adoption, is that going to limit grave evil?
 
Are you trying to tell us that there are no pro-life candidates running for president? Because if not, then we can’t vote for Romney. Romney also supports gay adoption, is that going to limit grave evil?
So, if legislation were to come up for vote banning all abortions nationwide, with the exception of rape and unborn children “known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth,” you would oppose that legislation?
 
Are you trying to tell us that there are no pro-life candidates running for president? Because if not, then we can’t vote for Romney. Romney also supports gay adoption, is that going to limit grave evil?
Yes-the alternative is to vote for someone who supports Abortion, homosexual marriage and
homosexual adoption. As Archbishop Chaput said such a vote is not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is voting to lessen evil
 
Yes-the alternative is to vote for someone who supports Abortion, homosexual marriage and
homosexual adoption. As Archbishop Chaput said such a vote is not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is voting to lessen evil
👍

Voting for someone who you know doesn’t have a chance to be elected, or voting for no one, doesn’t lessen evil.
 
So, if legislation were to come up for vote banning all abortions nationwide, with the exception of rape and unborn children “known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth,” you would oppose that legislation?
We can not let the perfect be the enemy of the possible. I am afraid, however, that in spite of Obamas support of abortion and homosexual marriage we are going to be inundated with “progressive” Catholics telling how republicans and obama are so evil its OK to vote for Obama.
 
Yes-the alternative is to vote for someone who supports Abortion, homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption. As Archbishop Chaput said such a vote is not voting for the lesser of two evils, it is voting to lessen evil
There are more candidates running than just Romney vs. Obama. Therefore, you can’t vote for Romney as long as there is someone more “catholic” out there according to what Chaput said.
 
It is, of course, also licit to vote for a thid party candidate or not vote, but neither of those options make sense to me.
A couple of elections ago, I made a list of what I considered my most important issues, and looked at all the candidates running for president. The one that most closely matched my views was, iirc the candidate for the Constitution Party. I voted for him, even though on other issues (the total elimination of social security sticks in my mind) made me sick.

While I have voted for third party candidates numerous times since I became eligable to vote, starting with Anderson, I realized that they don’t have any chance of winning. Sometimes the vote was to send a message (maybe I’m old and cynical, but the message never seemed to be received), and that last time was to vote my conscious.

Yet it left such a bad taste in my mouth, I wonder about it.

Tom A.
It’s not the money. It’s the principle. And interest.
 
There are more candidate than just Romney vs. Obama. Therefore, you can’t vote for Romney as long as there is someone more “catholic” out there according to what Chaput said.
No, that is not correct. There is no requirement that you throw. Your vote away on a non viable canidate. If that were true we would in effect cede the political playing field to the culture of death.
 
A couple of elections ago, I made a list of what I considered my most important issues, and looked at all the candidates running for president. The one that most closely matched my views was, iirc the candidate for the Constitution Party. I voted for him, even though on other issues (the total elimination of social security sticks in my mind) made me sick.

While I have voted for third party candidates numerous times since I became eligable to vote, starting with Anderson, I realized that they don’t have any chance of winning. Sometimes the vote was to send a message (maybe I’m old and cynical, but the message never seemed to be received), and that last time was to vote my conscious.

Yet it left such a bad taste in my mouth, I wonder about it.

Tom A.
It’s not the money. It’s the principle. And interest.
The main point here is that we can disagree with canidates about the application of the welfare state.

The issue with SS and a lot of other social programs is that they are completely underfunded. In some way’s we’d be better off if we let people have the money they are paying into SS and invest it themselves.
 
Are you trying to tell us that there are no pro-life candidates running for president? Because if not, then we can’t vote for Romney. Romney also supports gay adoption, is that going to limit grave evil?
Is your last statement correct? Does Romney in fact support gay adoption but not gay marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top