R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
By chance, the albino monk and I are attending my Opus Dei retreat at Longlea next month. We are driving there together, but he’s the only one with a cilice and discipline in his travel bag.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
By the whole Church, united?
But lets step outside the norm for a second. Clearly there is a great debate and Catholics are divided, almost in half. No correcting, and unifying message is needed, simply because you think you are right? That places the other half in a hard position, if you truly and indeed are right. The reverse holds true if you are truly wrong.
Catholics have one voice they must listen too. We cannot pick and choose from less than the one authoritative voice that we all must listen too, and declare right.
How hard is that to understand?
R
rlg94086
Guest
Bottom line, we cannot vote for a candidate who is in favor of abortion without a proportionate reason. I know you are afraid to state such a reason for someone else, but please do your non-partisan best. What is a proportionate reason to support a candidate who favors the killing of a million human beings per year?
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
How the Romney Camp Sees the Early Vote in Iowa
Pew: MSNBC more negative than Fox News
Longtime Ohio Democrat Backs Romney
nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/332318/middle-cheese-everybodys-ending-campaign-blue-states
Who’s Really Winning Early Voting?
Pew: MSNBC more negative than Fox News
twitter.com/jimgeraghty/status/264359278368940032
Longtime Ohio Democrat Backs Romney
nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/332318/middle-cheese-everybodys-ending-campaign-blue-states
No, Independents Are Not Just Discouraged Republicans
Who’s Really Winning Early Voting?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
If a candidate’s credibility is sincerely questioned, you have a proportionate reason. It doesn’t have to go any further than that. No where does the Church teach you must believe a candidate. No where does the Church teach you must ‘gamble’ your vote.
Using your definition, what is the Church’s proportionate reason for not plainly speaking that Catholics MUST vote for ONLY one candidate? Millions of Catholics were divided on the issue last election. Using your definition, they went against Church teaching. Does the Church have no obligation to bring those sheep back into the flock by giving a clear statement that cannot be debated?
Or, is the debate is the body of Christ making a decision through the individual consciences of Catholics?
Notice how what I say does not ask that you change what your conscience leads you to do, and using your definition requires Catholics to go against what their consciences lead them to do?
Would the Church require us to go against another teaching with such a demand? I don’t believe it would.
R
RACJ
Guest
Code:
With all due respect, PS1, Christians have a choice to either vote for the man Obama who loathes Christianity *so much* that he had the Crucifix at Georgetown shrouded before he spoke, or the man Romney who respects people of all faiths. If one can see Christians being kicked in the teeth BEFORE his re-election bid, one can only imagine the hostility afterward.
To me, the only way that a true Christian can cast a vote for such a bigoted man is to willfully ignore reality. Cordially, Rob :ehh:
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
None of which seems to address the points I raised?
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
Prodigal Son,
You sit on the fence and debase partisanship by Obama and Romney advocates (although Romney takes a harder hit in your commentary). What is your purpose in addressing the forum? Are you trying to convince us not to vote? I don’t understand the purpose behind your commentary. Generally, you ask more questions than you supply answers. Please explain, if you don’t mind…
You sit on the fence and debase partisanship by Obama and Romney advocates (although Romney takes a harder hit in your commentary). What is your purpose in addressing the forum? Are you trying to convince us not to vote? I don’t understand the purpose behind your commentary. Generally, you ask more questions than you supply answers. Please explain, if you don’t mind…
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Read through and see who is being placed the highest and as most righteous and in the majority of posts. Also, we have the record of one, which I have repeatedly stated over and over. So, accordingly one gets more attention.
I am trying to convince people into allowing people to decide based on their faith formed consciences as the Church teaches. Neither candidate is above reproach, as is being argued. Both candidates mislead through ads, but one is acceptable and one is not. Some have decided that bullying others into going against their consciences is acceptable. These are things that must be addressed for the application of consciences to be as the Church teaches they should be.
As I believe these things are against Church teachings, with appearances of being for individual, or partisan, interests, I will address them for that reason only.
Questions can make some people think and see the flaws others see in an argument., but, admittedly they have to be objective to see the points raised through questions.
Questions answered also provide insight into another person’s view. Refusal to address questions leave one to assume answers.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Hold up…so, you believe that someone could vote for Obama who supports the unrestricted killing of 1 million human beings a year because the other major candidate may not be credible when he says he is in favor of limiting abortion?
How is that a proportionate reason?
Well, kids, I don’t want you to be killed, but I don’t trust the guy who says he also doesn’t want you to be killed. Therefore, I’m going to support the guy whose commitment to your death is credible.
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
Republicans are known for their vaunted “72 hour” get-out-the-vote strategy, a massive operation that commences three days prior to a general election. It looks like Team Romney is preparing to kick off its 2012 GOTV effort in style; they’ve orchestrated a mammoth rally tonight at 7pm ET in West Chester, Ohio – a suburb of Cincinnati. Who will be there? As far as GOP politics is concerned, the better question might be who won’t be there. Take a look at this list: In addition to Mitt and Ann Romney and Paul and Janna Ryan, the Romney campaign has announced that the following will attend: John McCain and his wife, Cindy; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; Texas Gov. Rick Perry; Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback; Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Marco Rubio (Fla.), John Thune (S.D.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.); former senator Norm Coleman (Minn.); former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani; former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge; Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus; Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah); former congressman Artur Davis (Ala.); Olympic champion speed skater Derek Parra; Olympic champion figure skater Scott Hamilton; champion golfer Jack Nicklaus; as well as Tagg and Jen Romney, Matt and Laurie Romney, Josh Romney, Ben Romney and Craig and Mary Romney, and BFA Chairman James Irvine. Kid Rock will perform.
Jack Nicklaus is a major favorite son in my native Buckeye State. I hope his influence helps.
Jack Nicklaus is a major favorite son in my native Buckeye State. I hope his influence helps.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Where does the Church teach that Catholics must gamble a vote?
It’s a simple question.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Nowhere…but that isn’t a proportionate reason. In such a case, you can certainly choose to vote for a third party candidate or not vote, but it isn’t a proportionate reason to vote for the clearly pro-abortion choice. …unless you have your special, non-partisan, non-Obama supporter supporter glasses on…
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
If one’s conscience does not allow them to accept a candidate as telling the truth, nothing is guaranteed that the candidate promises. Proportionate is only to the extent that the candidate is being honest.
This is why the Church does not place it’s self in a position of supporting a candidate. All candidates are human and open to err. It would give great doubt to the Church if it gave support to such a candidate that later proved to be ‘evil’ in some aspect. The Church would not place a single sheep in a position it would not place itself in.
Your added commentary makes me doubt a serious attempt to understand what I am explaining and it well be the reverse of what you insinuate that blocks an objective approach to understanding. I’m not sure. But it would be nice if we could limit those things that could be considered a distraction from what is honestly being conveyed.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Precisely. From past evidence I have no reason to trust not just Romney, but in general the Republican Party on much, and certainly not on the issue of abortion, at least not on the federal level.
Catholics are not obliged to leave their brains at the church door and at the voting booth.
Just because someone says some magic words, we are supposed to believe them? We are followers of Jesus Christ, not of The Pied Piper.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Obama has PROVEN BY HIS ACTIONS that he is anti-life.
As to Romney, can you read minds?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Related:
gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm
Roberts confirmation hearing:
Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land. It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.
Indeed, in Casey a Supreme Court with eight out of nine Republican-appointed justices has in effect re-affirmed Roe V. Wade.
- Status