Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
We have two of them in choir. And they loudly let us know it. They get their catechesis from NCREPORTER.
- Status
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
Not me! I subscribe to L’Osservatore Romano and the National Catholic Register. This is buttressed by my Opus Dei studies and homilies by our parish priests, both conservative.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I may be a liberal, but I doubt that Romney would go that far.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Opus Dei conservative? Is it not the quintessential reactionary Catholic lay organization?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
‘…IF he were to deliberately vote for a candidate PRECISELY because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion…’
The one voice has spoken, in 2004, and offered no different, even in the face of great debates requesting a more narrowed scope in what appears to be partisan reasons. Without the narrowing, some Catholics have taken it upon themselves to redefine it for the Holy Father. Sorry, the hierarchy does not work that way. You would indeed have an argument if the Church spoke as a whole, united in total agreement. Without that total agreement, we can only seek definition from the author.
So who is misquoting, and for what reason? I want no one to change to any party, but return to the charity required of all believers. What is your motivation for you ‘quoting’ what the Cardinal wrote?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Source, or is it more unidentified sarcasm with other motivations?
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
R
rlg94086
Guest
. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
Your “non-partisan” sensibilities failed to notice the last sentence in the quote you provided. Why did you ignore the need for proportionate reasons? What is your motivation for misrepresenting what the Cardinal wrote?
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
We have several publications, including those from Bishops and those endorsed by Bishops that says the right to life is paramount in the elections and that every thing else takes a back seat since it is in the realm of prudential judgement.
Why is this so hard for some posters here to understand?
T
Tampa_Dave
Guest
Opus Dei does not dictate one’s political position. I really don’t want to speak out of school, but I can state my unequivocal belief that Opus Dei is not the “quintessential reactionary Catholic lay organization”. Further, I sayeth naught…Opus Dei conservative? Is it not the quintessential reactionary Catholic lay organization?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
But those don’t count because the Bishops didn’t say them during a duel solar and lunar eclipse while standing on one foot while singing “I’m just an obamanation”
We have several publications, including those from Bishops and those endorsed by Bishops that says the right to life is paramount in the elections and that every thing else takes a back seat since it is in the realm of prudential judgement.
Why is this so hard for some posters here to understand?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Okay. I trust your opinion about it.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
LOL
I guess we need Pope Benedict to call a council or speak ex cathedra or something
R
rlg94086
Guest
Rich is probably looking for the albino monk…
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Didn’t know at first to whom you were referring. But, now that I do…No.
R
rlg94086
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I more than noticed it and am not going to define proportionate to other consciences, just as Cardinal Ratzinger did not do. To assume those definitions is misrepresenting. Bottom line, we cannot vote for a candidate to precisely support an intrinsic evil.
With all the gymnastics around that, no one crosses the line to plainly speak support for a must vote for candidate, at least none with authority. Even those who have recently spoken continue with the ‘precisely to support a candidate’ leaving a door open. If it truly were a teaching of the Church that endangered millions of souls, the Church is obligated to feed His sheep. If that requires plain speak, it must be done. In the absence of plain speak, we have lots of people offering their personal view as ‘Church’ teaching, but none with authority. Of the authoritative voices, is there a whole consensus?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Is it the whole of all authoritative men? Are they all united? If not, some run the risk of picking and choosing and our Church would not leave us in that position. Why is that so hard for some posters to understand? Motivations maybe?
We have several publications, including those from Bishops and those endorsed by Bishops that says the right to life is paramount in the elections and that every thing else takes a back seat since it is in the realm of prudential judgement.
Why is this so hard for some posters here to understand?
T
Tampa_Dave
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.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
The Church does not leave us in any hard postion. They have defined several principals to vote on.
We can have a robust debate on economic issues, immagration, voting, the death penalty, government funded social welfare and so on. There is not one right answer here. The Church allows a wide range of positions - we are allowed to balance subsidiarity/solidarity and to protect our borders as we see fit (as long as we do it in the frame work the church has laid out)
Murder is murder is murder - it doesn’t matter how you slice it. You simply cannot vote for someone who wants unrestricted access to abortion, unless you have someone else who advocates some form of murder.
How hard is this to understand?
- Status