Obama won Catholic vote, regular churchgoers chose Romney [CC]

[Pitcharan]

President Obama’s policies are in direct conflict with Catholic teachings. The fact that 34 catholic dioceses are suing his administration is clear proof of that or do you presume to know more than our Bishops?

If Christ never taught that we should make penal laws to control sinful behaviour does that mean that rapists shouldn’t go to jail?

Crime control and legislation are unalienable domain of elected people’s representatives. Their decisions are binding unless set aside by competent courts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m talking about today. Want to talk about Plessy vs. Ferguson and how many of the justices that justified segregation were Repubs or Democrats then? The Dred Scott decision maybe? 40 years ago, back at the dawn of time, there were lots of liberal Repubs. Remember all that? Some of them were more liberal than a lot of Democrats back then in the days of bell-bottom pants and shag rugs. Probably even had a few Dixiecrats left over. Probably back then there were even some prolife Democrats left too.

Let’s talk about now and what the Repub party and the Dem party are now. For the last twenty years, there has been not one prolife Democrat appointed to the Court. There has been no Repub appointee who is not prolife during the same period. For the past thirty years, there was only one abortion supporting republican appointee, now gone, and every single Democrat appointee has been, including the last two.

You can’t justify your equivilating of the two parties of today on 40 year old stuff. Why anyone would persist in insisting that they’re no different today when they clearly and dramatically are very different is inexplicable in the absence of simply wanting to feed moral ennui.

Yes, I do realize there’s a lot of that coming out of Democrat sources nowadays, and we have seen a lot of it on here. It’s their present strategy. But neither you nor I are obliged to buy into it or defend it to others or ourselves.

Personally, I prefer not to despair or to counsel it either.

Oh yes, I have to go to other things now. Have the last word if it pleases you. Just don’t quote me selectively if you quote me. Much inadvertent mischief is sometimes done by selectively doing that.

It’s not about selective. It’s selective to say, ‘let’s talk about now, let’s not talk about then,’ I’ve seen the same arguments administration, after administration. This is not a partisan source, this is what I know and remember. Is the Democratic party liberal? Yes. Is the Republican party conservative? Yes. Has anything changed when either was in ‘power’? No. Roe vs. Wade happened 40 years ago. I see you say, ‘40 years ago, back at the dawn of time, there were lots of liberal Repubs.’ Then a little bit later you say, ‘For the last twenty years, there has been not one prolife Democrat appointed to the Court. There has been no Repub appointee who is not prolife during the same period.’ I’ve been focusing on the last 12 years, specifically a period where Republicans has control, in the administration, house, senate, and supreme court.

It’s not despair to recognize that and start questioning what has been reality. We don’t have to buy into either strategies. It’s time to throw away partisan identities and start holding individuals accountable. One has been no better than the other, and here we are.

Besides nothing getting done, the Republicans problem has also been other issues, yet they don’t compromise on those for the sake of the important issues, and their support dwindles. For example, the Latino vote is growing in numbers, yet the Republicans distanced themselves on immigration. That situation is not going to get any better.

What we need are individuals that take responsibility to, and for the people, and not for the sake of a partisan platform, or party.

 

[OriginalJS]

Is it not time for the Church to get out of partisan politics; shouldn’t it be above these political frays and instead be a refuge from worldiness? Just look at the arguments posted here!

 

[Lapey]

Wouldn’t another option be to help you in your situation so that you CAN feed all three children? Why are we so outspoken about making abortion illegal, but when it comes to taking care of women and children so that women aren’t put into the position of having to make such a horrible choice, there are very few advocates?

What are you talking about? The “war on women” I guess. Yes, I signed up for that war. This is silly. I fight for people, for souls. All of them including women and their unborn children, do you?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think so, but you study this and so will I and we can talk tomorrow. But I doubt you will find anything like the gramatically incorrect statement from Fr. Serpa. I don’t think he is misspeaking, I think it is a simple typo.

In the study of conscience, no one is to force another against their conscience.

Also, it goes beyond 1785. In 1790 it states:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

I’m not leaving out that it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

What is missing, in the entirety of the teaching, is another cannot speak for the conscience of another. When it speaks of one must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, it gives qualification of “especially in religious matters.”

It speaks of seeking truth, and how it achieved. While it speaks of the advice of competent people, and the help fo the Holy Spirit and His Gifts, it does not speak to must accept from other ‘men’.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

• the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56

There is a distinct instruction about respecting another person’s conscience.

• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58

Charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience. Is it charitable to tell one they have supported an evil, when they say they have not? Is it charitable to question one’s faith because of what they say their conscience tells them in a matter? Is it charitable to tell others they have committed a mortal sin because they say they acted on their conscience?

1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16).

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.

Nowhere does it give one right over another person’s conscience.

 

[Mickey]

Is it not time for the Church to get out of partisan politics;

They are not in partisan politics. They are standing up for life; the Biblical definition of marriage; and religious liberty.

It just so happens that at this time…there is only one party that stands for these issues.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think so, but you study this and so will I and we can talk tomorrow. But I doubt you will find anything like the gramatically incorrect statement from Fr. Serpa. I don’t think he is misspeaking, I think it is a simple typo.

Prior to this past election, a group charged that a diocese’s Faithful Citizenship presentation supported a specific candidate, or party. It was suggested that "Catholics can vote for the promotion of intrinsic evils and “feel good about it.”

These accusations were based on the inclusion of the language, “…if it is the voter’s intent to support that position.”

The Bishop responded.

The Faithful Citizenship presentations are based directly on the statement of the Catholic Bishops of the United States in their most recent version of the Faithful Citizenship document from October 2011. The Bishops’ statement is quoted extensively throughout the course of the presentation, including the portions of the Bishops’ statement that clearly indicate that intrinsic evils, such as abortion, must always be opposed and that a Catholic can never in good conscience vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil if it is the voter’s intent to support that position.

Bishop Lennon noted, “There is no evidence that the Faithful Citizenship presentations are biased, but reflect the straightforward teachings of the United States Bishops and the Catholic Church on how an individual’s faith relates to his voting choices. This issue has been grossly distorted by a few individuals who wrongly claim to represent the entire Right to Life movement and whose purpose is not to shed light on authentic Catholic teaching but to remake and narrow the scope of Catholic teaching to fit their own personal agenda.” Bishop Lennon also noted that it is very telling that the detractors have given no specific example of any statement made at the forums that is contrary to Church beliefs and teaching.

I realize statements from other Bishops can be produced that seem to be in opposition, but it shows some confusion on the matter to say the least.

As in the instructions on forming and utilizing consciences, we have no way to say one is right and another is wrong. We are Catholics, it’s not a ‘majority rules’. We, clergy included, all look to one leader over the whole Church. It is his language that is the topic of debate, which those suggestions and accusations reference in the above.

…intrinsic evils, such as abortion, must always be opposed and that a Catholic can never in good conscience vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil if it is the voter’s intent to support that position.

Those debates began in 2004, and continued in 2008, and 2012. The Bishops assembled and debated the language prior to the 2012 release of the Faithful Citizenship Catholic Voter’s Guide. The guide was released, with no changes. How many times must it be addressed before we can accept it as further guidance on the formation of conscience where every man must act on, and must not be forced against?

 

[seekerz]

Precisely.

But the stubborn delusion of the Tea Party Catholics persists.

I’m starting to get the feeling the Church as family may be in for a very bumpy ride if our bishops do not speak out firmly against ideological extremism within our ranks.

 

[seekerz]

They are not in partisan politics. They are standing up for life; the Biblical definition of marriage; and religious liberty.

It just so happens that at this time…there is only one party that stands for these issues.

So, why do we need to support any particular party? We already own the truth. Did Peter and Paul need a party to spread knowledge of the truth? I was under the impression that the truth is spread by Christians living it…

 

[seekerz]

Nowhere does it give one right over another person’s conscience.

Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

BTW Prodigal Son, you never responded to this.

I have responded, through discussions with other posters. The 7 to 2 majority Republicans enjoyed on the supreme court, during the 8 years of GWB’s administration, 2 with a Republican controlled house and senate, seem to indicate support of the ‘status quo’, or more of the same ole, same ole.

It can be called apathy, or suspicion. Either way it was a let down.

While some Democrats openly support pro choice, it has appearances of Republicans being less than honest. This is why I believe our ‘guides’ state, ‘intrinsic evils, such as abortion, must always be opposed and that a Catholic can never in good conscience vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil if it is the voter’s intent to support that position.’

Because it is our consciences that doubt a credibility.

 

[BroomWagon]

I’m starting to get the feeling the Church as family may be in for a very bumpy ride if our bishops do not speak out firmly against ideological extremism within our ranks.

The problem is Democrats are not seeing women as intelligent people, they think that all they need to do is give out contraception and abortions.

The Republicans have 2 women governors, the Democrats none.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The problem is Democrats are not seeing women as intelligent people, they think that all they need to do is give out contraception and abortions.

The Republicans have 2 women governors, the Democrats none.

I think this is a false argument against both parties, when consideration is given to the appointment of women to all administrations.

 

[oldcelt]

The problem is Democrats are not seeing women as intelligent people, they think that all they need to do is give out contraception and abortions.

The Republicans have 2 women governors, the Democrats none.

The Democrats just elected one, along with a couple of Senators. For the rest of your statement…nonsense.

John

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

They are not in partisan politics. They are standing up for life; the Biblical definition of marriage; and religious liberty.

It just so happens that at this time…there is only one party that stands for these issues.

There are some who have stayed on topic of life, marriage, and religious liberty. There also seems to be a lot of remorse posted over other issues which have partisan differences. This seems to indicate consideration of other issues; something that was preached against when trying to sway others to a partisan vote. That’s what happens when we mix spiritual with political.

 

[BroomWagon]

The Democrats just elected one, along with a couple of Senators. For the rest of your statement…nonsense.

John

The Democrats demean women seeing the only issue with them as being birth control and abortions, they basically see them as sex objects.

 

[oldcelt]

The Democrats demean women seeing the only issue with them as being birth control and abortions, they basically see them as sex objects.

Sure

 

[Lapey]

In the study of conscience, no one is to force another against their conscience.

Nowhere does it give one right over another person’s conscience.

Thank you.

I do not force, it is my job to form however. You have free will to choose, but to choose wrong is just that, wrong.

It is the duty of a catholic to point out sin, as God explains to Ezekiel, lest we also die for the sin of our brother/sisters. Our culture is dying and you two believe we are to allow it without a fight. I cannot allow myself or as many as I can help, die for the sin of the selfish who feel it is not their fight to end abortion or protect the sanctity of marriage, or any other issue the Church holds as truth.

We are where we are in this day and age because of luke warm Catholics, I refuse to be luke warm. I will continue to preach from the rooftops the fullness of the truth which is the Catholic Church.

Now you two want to secularize this forum, that’s your choice, I do not. This is a Catholic forum and should be Catholics being able to discuss topics in honesty, instead we get accused of partisanship and forcing others to go against their conscience. Speaking for the right side of issues and teaching Church teachings is not partisan, not forcing anyone to do anything but learn and conform to Mother Church. This is what is required, conform to truth. When there is a disagreement in your conscience, it is required to learn why, then conform after discerning the truth. It is not ok to still commit the error after learning truth. This is what Fr. Serpa’s words mean, a well formed conscience will not go against Church teaching. That’s why this second statement makes no sense as written. If a well and properly formed conscience knows Church teaching and still acts contrary to them, he is in error.

PS. Prodigal, you still haven’t answered my question. What do you suggest we do? Should we give up, surrender to secularism? All you do is criticize republicans past, ok, I get it, now what???

 

[JMJSHJ]

I’ve been focusing on the last 12 years, specifically a period where Republicans has control, in the administration, house, senate, and supreme court.

In the last 12 years Pres Bush appointed 2 Pro-Life Catholic Supreme Court justices. Of course you should know that a President can’t just appoint any at their whim unless a current one decides to step down.

Conclusion: when presented with an opportunity the Republican party has in recent years, appointed pro life supreme court justices.

 

[Lapey]

I have responded, through discussions with other posters. The 7 to 2 majority Republicans enjoyed on the supreme court, during the 8 years of GWB’s administration, 2 with a Republican controlled house and senate, seem to indicate support of the ‘status quo’, or more of the same ole, same ole.

It can be called apathy, or suspicion. Either way it was a let down.

While some Democrats openly support pro choice, it has appearances of Republicans being less than honest. This is why I believe our ‘guides’ state, ‘intrinsic evils, such as abortion, must always be opposed and that a Catholic can never in good conscience vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil if it is the voter’s intent to support that position.’

Because it is our consciences that doubt a credibility.

What is your plan? Keep supporting democrats and criticizing republicans who say they are ready to fight? Keep siding with dems because you and so many misinterpret the documents, “if it is the voter’s intent…”?

Ok, hypothetically, you are in charge of all Catholics in the US, what do we do? What’s your first directive to me, the deacon?