Obama vs Romney, who are you voting for and why?

[_Abyssinia]

Continued with sources…

Dolan has stressed that he does not agree with Paul Ryan on everything and when he praises his longtime friend Paul Ryan, he is only “speaking personally".

nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez?pg=1

And Dolan welcomed the fact that there is a Catholic on each party’s ticket. “Do you not think it’s a cause for celebration in the Catholic community in the United States of America that the two vice-presidential candidates are Catholic? Did you ever think it would come to this?

“We’ve got two men who — and you can disagree with one of them or both of them — say they take their faith seriously, who don’t try to hide it, and who say, ‘Hey, my Catholic upbringing and my Catholic formation influences the way I think.’ Not bad. Not bad.”

nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez?pg=2

catholic Bishops are not allowed to endorse candidates, that is Cardinal Dolan uses langauge such as I, ‘speaking personally.’

When Catholic teaching makes clear that voting for a candidate who supports abortion, homosexual marriage etc can make you guilty of mortal sin why do you think that allows you to vote for Obama who supports the intrinsic evils Catholic teaching is opposed to?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’ve decided that’s it in a nutshell. Catholic Romney voters don’t agree with Catholic Obama voters on who to vote for. But both groups have their practicing, faithful Catholics with informed consciences according to CCC and Catholic teaching. Their considerations lead them to vote for differing candidates. That appears fine with the USCCB which in its intro to Faithful Citizenship said they don’t give a scorecard of issues nor direction on how to vote. Appears to me until a Catholic’s bishop directs them to vote for Romney and says one must do so to remain a faithful Catholic, looks to me like the Obama voters are on as solid ground as the Romney ones. Even though the Romney posters might not agree. In any case I’ve tired of the Romney posters attempting to judge whether the Obama ones have consciences informed by the Catholic Church because of who they are voting for. When the bishops themselves have said they aren’t giving direction on who Catholics must vote for. Until all the bishops become clearer if they require all Catholics to vote Republican, I imagine this debate will on and on and on. Yes I know about tax exemptions. But if it is the truth Catholics must vote Republican, I would think the truth is more important than avoiding taxes.

The USSCB provides the Catholic teaching of the Church which opposes voting for candidates who support intrinsic evils. Why does this have to be repeated over and over again? The Bishops do not need to say ‘vote republican,’ they affirm the issues of centrality that should be of principal focus to Catholi cvoters and it is crystal clear if the core of the teaching is that abortion has been declared as one of the most serious sins in society you would not vote for a candidate such as Obama, because you would be putting yourself in a state of sin if you knw that the other candidate is pro life or wants to reduce abortion. You do not need to have it spelled out by a Bishop ‘do not vote for Obama’

Protecting life from conception is a core teaching of Catholic social teaching which has to inform the Catholic conscience

 

[Al_Moritz]

The USSCB provides the Catholic teaching of the Church which opposes voting for candidates who support intrinsic evils. Why does this have to be repeated over and over again? The Bishops do not need to say ‘vote republican,’ they affirm the issues of centrality that should be of principal focus to Catholi cvoters and it is crystal clear if the core of the teaching is that abortion has been declared as one of the most serious sins in society you would not vote for a candidate such as Obama, because you would be putting yourself in a state of sin if you knw that the other candidate is pro life or wants to reduce abortion. You do not need to have it spelled out by a Bishop ‘do not vote for Obama’

Protecting life from conception is a core teaching of Catholic social teaching which has to inform the Catholic conscience

Well, we have already discussed the USSCB document extensively, haven’t we? And no, the interpretation that you give to it is not as “crystal clear” as you make it out to be (if there just wouldn’t be that ‘inconvenient’ paragraph 35 …).

 

[Lapey]

I didn’t know “progressive” was a dirty word. You ask who will she vote for? A progressive Democrat or a Catholic? Mitt Romney is not a Catholic. He professes Mormonism. Barack Obama was baptized in the United Church of Christ, professes Christianity and has worshiped Christ in St John’s Episcopal near the White House where he has received communion. If you’re speaking about VP, I read Dolan say he doesn’t agree with Ryan on everything but is personal longtime friends with him. But Dolan made it clear both Ryan and Biden are Catholics.

Okay Matt, this time you have changed my words, I in no way asked who she would vote for, a progressive democrat or a Catholic. I specifically asked her who she would be, a progressive democrat or a Catholic; one cannot be faithful to both when they oppose each other. Remember this, Luke 16:13-15

“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." 16.14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. 16.15 But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.”

We can justify our actions in many ways which allows us to “follow our conscience”, but in the end it is justification to go against the teachings of the Church, and these things that progressive democrats promote in the name of worldly ideas and progress to the new modernism, is an abomination in the sight of God. How do I know you ask? Because the Holy Scripture says it is so, and the Church teaches it is so in her Sacred Tradition and her Magisterium preaches it as truth; that’s enough for me.

The term progressive in what it means today, is in fact a dirty word. It stands for intrinsic evils, see party platform. There is no separating the two, either you are a faithful Catholic and follow Church teachings or you are something else, you decide what.

I never questioned President Obama’s Christianity, nor have I touted Mitt Romney’s Christianity or lack there of. All I have done is talk issues, issues in which the Church disdains in Obama and is in compliance with Romney.

Now please go back and read my post and be fair, as you normally are.

 

[Lapey]

Continued with sources…

Dolan has stressed that he does not agree with Paul Ryan on everything and when he praises his longtime friend Paul Ryan, he is only “speaking personally".

nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez?pg=1

And Dolan welcomed the fact that there is a Catholic on each party’s ticket. “Do you not think it’s a cause for celebration in the Catholic community in the United States of America that the two vice-presidential candidates are Catholic? Did you ever think it would come to this?

“We’ve got two men who — and you can disagree with one of them or both of them — say they take their faith seriously, who don’t try to hide it, and who say, ‘Hey, my Catholic upbringing and my Catholic formation influences the way I think.’ Not bad. Not bad.”

nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez?pg=2

Doland should call out Biden, he should be excluded from recieveing communion. He publically supports intrinsic evils. I can assure you, many members of the clergy have responded to Dolan’s comments from across the country. He was wrong in comparing the two as alike, because they are not.

 

[Lapey]

False. The Catholic teaching never allows abortion in any case. I am just wondering why not one of the self-prclaimed faithful Romney-supporting Catholics here has pointed this out.

Sorry Al, I was doing something called SLEEP!

And yes that is correct, intrinsic evil means it is never acceptible.

And to get your description of me right, I am not a “self-appointed faithful Romney-supporting Catholic.” I am a Catholic who sees the issues in this race as clear as day. The democrat is in favor of everything the Church abhors and the republican is not.

Before you accuse me again of being a partisan political hack, please look at my record of posting over the years, you will not see my endorsement of a party or person. You will see me constantly defending life first and foremost then the other issues the Church holds dear; like the sanctity of marriage. To say different of me is disingenuous and untrue.

 

[Lapey]

The Challenge of
Forming Consciences
for Faithful Citizenship

USCCB website.

Making Moral Choices

Difficult political decisions require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence. This exercise of conscience begins with always opposing policies that violate human life or weaken its protection. “Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
[USCCB], Catholics in Political Life).

When morally flawed laws already exist, prudential judgment is needed to determine how to do what is possible to restore justice—even if partially or gradually—without ever abandoning a moral commitment to full protection for all human life from conception to natural death (see Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, no. 73).

Prudential judgment is also needed to determine the best way to promote the common good in areas such as housing, health care, and immigration. When Church leaders make judgments about how to apply Catholic teaching to specific policies, this may not carry the same binding authority as universal moral principles but cannot be dismissed as one political opinion among others. These moral applications should inform the consciences and guide the actions of Catholics.

 

[Lapey]

Same document USCCB

The Virtue of Prudence

The Church also encourages Catholics to develop the virtue of prudence, which enables us “to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.1806). Prudence shapes and informs our ability to deliberate over available alternatives, to determine what is most fitting to a specific context, and to act.

Prudence must be accompanied by courage which calls us to act. As Catholics seek to advance the common good, we must carefully discern which public policies are morally sound. A good end does not justify an immoral means. At times Catholics may choose different ways to respond to social problems, but we cannot differ on our obligation to protect human life and dignity and help build through moral means a more just and peaceful world.

Emphasis is mine, but I changed nothing. Notice there is an “and” there, not an “or”. We cannot differ on our obligation to protect human life and dignity.

 

[seekerz]

In any case I’ve tired of the Romney posters attempting to judge whether the Obama ones have consciences informed by the Catholic Church because of who they are voting for. When the bishops themselves have said they aren’t giving direction on who Catholics must vote for. Until all the bishops become clearer if they require all Catholics to vote Republican, I imagine this debate will on and on and on. Yes I know about tax exemptions. But if it is the truth Catholics must vote Republican, I would think the truth is more important than avoiding taxes.

(bolding mine)

Exactly. They accuse me of not having an informed conscience and when I refute that, they accuse me of not having a conscience formed by the Church…I’m not sure what part of MY conscience is not fully understood - it belongs to me and I’m responsible for it. If someone else should read my post and assume my conscience that would be irresponsible - because each of us has a duty to tend to our consciences ourselves.

The Church has never, to my knowledge, left a matter of mortal sin unclear. If voting for Obama is a mortal sin as has been implied here, then it would be clearly stated with NO ambiguities REGARDLESS of the cost. That’s what has been handed down from the apostles to the present hierarchy - the DUTY to teach, guide and speak the truth WITH NO REGARD to who it offends. Inform that!

 

[Lapey]

Doing Good and Avoiding Evil

There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. These intrinsically evil acts must always be rejected and never supported. A preeminent example is the intentional taking of human life through abortion. It is always morally wrong to destroy innocent human beings. A legal system that allows the right to life to be violated on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

Similarly, direct threats to the dignity of human life such as euthanasia, human cloning, and destructive research on human embryos are also intrinsically evil and must be opposed. Other assaults on human life and dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified. Disrespect for any human life diminishes respect for all human life.

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

There is more, but I have to run.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And to get your description of me right, I am not a “self-appointed faithful Romney-supporting Catholic.”

Lapey,

I did not specifically have you in mind when I wrote my post. There are plenty of posters here that fit my description (“self-proclaimed”, not “self-appointed”).

 

[Lapey]

Lapey,

I did not specifically have you in mind when I wrote my post. There are plenty of posters here that fit my description (“self-proclaimed”, not “self-appointed”).

I understand and accept that, but you have a propensity for making generalizations and personal attacks that are uncalled for and uncharitable. Then you come back and deny that you did. This is exactly why the political discourse is what it is.

This is breaking news I know, but people have differing views in many of these debates, this doesn’t mean that the people are bad or evil if they disagree with you. Or on a funny note, it doesn’t mean they are victims of a “dog whistle” campaign as Carlan speaks of, that is just ridiculous.

 

[Carlan]

How ever ridiculous one may be you all can go on forever with your political views it is your right . I have heard enough of you for now…continue with your druthers, I am going with with what the Bishops say and the help they give me in discerning what is right.

Our bishops call for a renewed kind of Politics
Focused more on moral principles than on the latest polls
Focused more on the needs of the weak than on benefits for the strong
Focused more on the pursuit of the common good than on the demands of narrow interests
This kind of political participation reflects the social teaching of our Church and the best traditions of our nation.
G’day and Peace in*** your ***discerning Carlan:thumbsup:

 

[scipio337]

How ever ridiculous one may be you all can go on forever with your political views it is your right . I have heard enough of you for now…continue with your druthers, I am going with with what the Bishops say and the help they give me in discerning what is right.

Our bishops call for a renewed kind of Politics
Focused more on moral principles than on the latest polls
Focused more on the needs of the weak than on benefits for the strong
Focused more on the pursuit of the common good than on the demands of narrow interests
This kind of political participation reflects the social teaching of our Church and the best traditions of our nation.
G’day and Peace in*** your ***discerning Carlan:thumbsup:

How can anyone who bases their politics on “moral principals” vote for this administration?

The logic escapes me.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Well, we have already discussed the USSCB document extensively, haven’t we? And no, the interpretation that you give to it is not as “crystal clear” as you make it out to be (if there just wouldn’t be that ‘inconvenient’ paragraph 35 …).

There is no inconvenient paragraph. Some are trying to pick quotes here and there from Faithful Citizenship to excuse their support for Obama, not taking the document as a whole. Do you think there is a proportionate enough reason for you to vote for Obama despite his support for intrinsic evils, that you will be able to face the victims of abortion with a clean heart when you meet them in the next life? As Archbishop Chaput has said

 

[Al_Moritz]

This is breaking news I know, but people have differing views in many of these debates, this doesn’t mean that the people are bad or evil if they disagree with you.

I never thought anyone here was bad or evil for disagreeing with me, and I fully and wholeheartedly respect their choice of conscience. Yet I would appreciate if others would not call another choice of conscience necessarily bad or evil either, or a choice of “cafeteria Catholics”, especially when this choice is allowed by a careful reading of Church documents (USCCB, Cardinal Ratzinger [the current Pope]).

 

[Al_Moritz]

There is no inconvenient paragraph. Some are trying to pick quotes here and there from Faithful Citizenship to excuse their support for Obama, not taking the document as a whole. Do you think there is a proportionate enough reason for you to vote for Obama despite his support for intrinsic evils, that you will be able to face the victims of abortion with a clean heart when you meet them in the next life? As Archbishop Chaput has said

We’ve been through all this already. I do take the document as a whole, others cherry-pick.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We’ve been through all this already. I do take the document as a whole, others cherry-pick.

How do you know that? What you are asserting is that your conscience is well-formed in your voting choice, but that the consciences of other Catholics are not, in that they are deliberately excluding portions of the USCCB document while forming their consciences. On what basis are we to believe that you have a well-formed conscience according to the definition of the Roman Church (not your private definition of conscience), whereas others who have read the same USCCB document in its entirety, and come to a radically different conclusion about voting priorities, have an inadequately formed conscience or a dishonest (piecemeal) approach?

Again, all these people claiming superior “charity” have apparently not considered the meaning of that word in the context of assumptions about other voting Catholics.

 

[scipio337]

…Do you think there is a proportionate enough reason for …

+1.

I have yet to have heard anyone provide the “proportionate reason”, or the logic behind it.

Let’s say a Republican president starts a war that kills around 1 million innocents. Now imagine this Republican president starting such a war EVERY YEAR for the past 40 years.

Are 1 million people dying of starvation in this country, per year? 1 million dying due to exposure to the elements every year?

We live in the most compassionate society in the history of mankind. Even our poor would be considered “rich” in most other nations, and in nearly every other point in history. Death from starvation is almost unheard of. A vast majority have suitible housing. Yet we partake in generational genocide and a eugenics program that most make even the most diabolical cringe.

I have no idea what anyone would consider a “proportionate reason”, especially given the layered “intrinsic evils” this administration supports.

 

[Al_Moritz]

How do you know that? What you are asserting is that your conscience is well-formed in your voting choice, but that the consciences of other Catholics are not, in that they are deliberately excluding portions of the USCCB document while forming their consciences. On what basis are we to believe that you have a well-formed conscience according to the definition of the Roman Church (not your private definition of conscience), whereas others who have read the same USCCB document in its entirety, and come to a radically different conclusion about voting priorities, have an inadequately formed conscience or a dishonest (piecemeal) approach?

Again, all these people claiming superior “charity” have apparently not considered the meaning of that word in the context of assumptions about other voting Catholics.

O.k., bad wording, my apologies.

I was mixing up

a) reading the whole document and forming your conscience accordingly. I trust that everyone does that, without cherry-picking.

with

b) quoting back the documents in the discussion while leaving out certain passages such the one about “other grave moral reasons” in the USCCB document, paragraph 35, or the “proportionate reasons” in the Ratzinger document. I have repeatedly seen this here, over and over again, and that is cherry-picking to bolster your own position.

The interpretation of these passages is deliberately left open in the documents, otherwise it would have been settled within the documents themselves. The interpretation is left to the individual conscience of Catholics who are expected to form their conscience in an appropriate way. That some interpretations, also by some bishops, have gone beyond that is a different issue.