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

[Prodigal_Son1]

What is the “middle ground” on abortion?

There we go. We agree on abortion. Now, let’s move to the other issues people looked at that caused them to vote the way they did. Is there no middle ground on social justice issues? We don’t have an election breathing down our necks at this moment. By example we can show that other issues are not as important as abortion and have our politicians make concessions on those issues, so they won’t be a distraction next election. Isn’t that what we should do?

 

[SeekingHisMercy]

Disagree

Christ never taught that we should make penal laws to control human sinful behaviour.

Church taught us to vote according to our conscience. Church did not teach us to spread hatred for any reason.

Tell me where the Church condones abortion. It doesn’t and has faithfully stood against it throughout this entire mess.

Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments”. He also said that not one letter of the law will pass away.

As Catholics, we are to inform our consciences according to the Teachings of the Magisterium and that includes the material within the Ten Commandments. Your response proves my point about the lack of catechesis among Catholics in the U.S.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But He did set up the Church, which has always sought both conversion of hearts and moral government.

AGREED!!!

And no matter which party is in charge of government, our Church looks to them to do the right things, on all issues. Neither side is exclusive of guidance.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Good spin for an election, but poor choice of wording for a post election, in my honest opinion. No one, even supporters of pro choice, view abortion as a sacrament. It’s the easy to see through examples like that that cause others to feel emboldened and entrench themselves into a position of wrongness. In short, it hurts more than it helps, again in my honest opinion.

How do you explain the left’s insistance on not putting any restrictions on abortion, then?

If they didn’t consider it to be like a sacrament, you think they wouldn’t mind all that much, would they?

I have car insurance, mandated by the government. Where’s the outrage?

One isn’t required to buy a car.

Car insurance is mandated on the state level not on a Federal one size fits all level.

The state sets reasonable minimums for auto coverage.

There is a ton of competition for auto insurance.

I can self insure if I choose to. I can also form an insurance co-op with my friends and neighbors.

The list goes on and on.

Looking at England, France, or Canada, as an example, we see people receiving care in catastrophic events. It’s spun in the US for political interests.

I work in EMS, in a rural county in Florida. When something very urgent happens, we often opt to call for a helicopter to expedite delivery of the patient to the hospital. Those ‘life flights’ now cost between $33,000. and $37,000. The reason costs are so high is because not everyone pays, so those that do end up absorbing the costs for those that don’t. Is that the competition we need in the ‘industry’?

The same goes for hospital stays, treatments, and medications. So the insurance companies charge more and more. Everyone is making money off the system we have now. Is their right to profit, more important than a person’s chance at quality care?

Specialized medical practices can turn people away, according to whether they can pay or not. Not so? County hospitals cannot turn people away? Correct! They must provide stabilization only. Necessary life saving treatments do not fall under that guideline. Also, the patient’s choices are limited on who they can see, based on their ability to pay.

Money? Life? Money? Life? Should be an easy decision for pro life people.

I can categorically say that you couldn’t be more wrong here.

 

[SeekingHisMercy]

If the truth alienates it is not the fault of truth, it is the fault of the “hardness of heart.” Truth cannot be watered down so it doesn’t offend anyone; I preach love, not hate. Love is not allowing a sinner, as I am surely one, to lay there in his sin! We must point out the sin and direct him to the truth, even when…especially when it is offensive.

The Church of “nice” is losing the battle. It’s past time for us to stand up and be Catholic!

So many years we have heard, “can’t talk about religion and politics.” I say rubbish! If we don’t, the devil will continue to win these battles. The devil is real, sin is real, hell is real, “nice” will allow many more souls to enter through that wide and frequently chosen road.

I choose the narrow gate, in spite of luke warm people who say I can’t speak for all. Jesus instructed us to make all nations disciples, not just Catholics. Either you accept that commission or get out of the way. Be a solution or sit it out. So far all you do is complain about the Republican Party and say you oppose both. But there is not much from you about the evils Obama stands for, sad.

This is your duty, learn why your conscience is not completely formed as the Church demands, and discern how to conform. Bottom line, we must conform, anything else is error.

Amen. Well said. It’s a time to pray and to stand firm in the Faith.

 

[JimG]

Ok, here we are again. It does not necessarily represent a support of evil. Not according to documents written by Cardinal Ratzinge, the Faithful Citizenship Voter’s Guide, and others. I have a lot of posts in this thread that question the language, and why it was not changed. Those posts are overlooked for some reason.

Yes, it’s been said that one can vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil as long as one didn’t vote for him precisely to support that evil.

That’s true, but it seems to open the door wide to a lot of personal loopholes. It’s as if one were to say, ‘yes, I voted for X even though he advocates hanging all Catholics in the public square. But I didn’t vote for him for that reason. I voted for him because of his other great programs.’ Fine, but the Catholics to be hanged in the public square would no doubt find it wanting.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How do you explain the left’s insistance on not putting any restrictions on abortion, then?

If they didn’t consider it to be like a sacrament, you think they wouldn’t mind all that much, would they?

I actually think that is an ad hominem, intended to inflame, but I am open to correction if you want to provide me a source where anyone views it as such.

One isn’t required to buy a car.

Car insurance is mandated on the state level not on a Federal one size fits all level.

The state sets reasonable minimums for auto coverage.

There is a ton of competition for auto insurance.

I can self insure if I choose to. I can also form an insurance co-op with my friends and neighbors.

The list goes on and on.

But do not pull out on the road without it.

The Federal government requires taxes, for all types of things. I am required to help pay for nuclear weapons, a bridge to nowhere, subsidies to wealthy companies, but shouldn’t have a voice to say, ‘let some of my taxes help the sick, feed the hungry, or give shelter to the poor?’

I can categorically say that you couldn’t be more wrong here.

Well, I guess I have been refuted. Who can argue with that rebuttal?

I’ve seen a few Canadians argue in favor of their healthcare system on these forums.

Whether their systems are inadequate or not, we are Americans; can’t we do it better than anyone else in the world?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, it’s been said that one can vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil as long as one didn’t vote for him precisely to support that evil.

That’s true, but it seems to open the door wide to a lot of personal loopholes. It’s as if one were to say, ‘yes, I voted for X even though he advocates hanging all Catholics in the public square. But I didn’t vote for him for that reason. I voted for him because of his other great programs.’ Fine, but the Catholics to be hanged in the public square would no doubt find it wanting.

Then the Church needs to address the faults of their teaching?

See, it doesn’t mean that average people didn’t sincerely follow the instructions out there from the Church. It doesn’t mean everyone is intellectually equal and some didn’t simply misunderstand it. We’re seeing many blanket accusations against our brothers and sisters otherwise. Personally, I don’t think that is right. None of us can see the intent of another person’s heart. In a way, we’re seeing Catholics hanging other Catholics verbally.

 

[JimG]

Then the Church needs to address the faults of their teaching?

See, it doesn’t mean that average people didn’t sincerely follow the instructions out there from the Church. It doesn’t mean everyone is intellectually equal and some didn’t simply misunderstand it. We’re seeing many blanket accusations against our brothers and sisters otherwise. Personally, I don’t think that is right. None of us can see the intent of another person’s heart.

Yes, that’s why the documents went on to talk about proportionate reasons. It turns out one man’s proportione reason is another man’s death. I can’t see into anyone’s heart, nor do I wish to. It just seems that a great many just did not consider abortion, gay marriage, or religious liberty to be particularly serious issues regardless of what the Church taught.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, that’s why the documents went on to talk about proportionate reasons. It turns out one man’s proportione reason is another man’s death. I can’t see into anyone’s heart, nor do I wish to. It just seems that a great many just did not consider abortion, gay marriage, or religious liberty to be particularly serious issues regardless of what the Church taught.

Those documents have been the topic of discussion since they were written. An assembly of Bishops met prior to the election this year to specifically discuss the language, because of accusations of vague language from the last election, yet it was released again without changes. There’s more to it than just one side misinterpreting something. No changes leaves it in the realm of individual consciences to take the advice and process it.

I am pro life, believe in DOMA, and religious liberty, yet I did not vote for Romney, or Obama, and I am not going to tell another they did not follow the instructions of the Church, or that their consciences are wrong. Prior to the election, there were some who said one must vote for Romney, anything else was in support of an intrinsic evil, yet the Church did not say that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, it’s been said that one can vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil as long as one didn’t vote for him precisely to support that evil.
AND IF THERE IS AN EQUAL OR GREATER PROPORTIONATE REASON TO DO SO
That’s true, but it seems to open the door wide to a lot of personal loopholes. It’s as if one were to say, ‘yes, I voted for X even though he advocates hanging all Catholics in the public square. But I didn’t vote for him for that reason. I voted for him because of his other great programs.’ Fine, but the Catholics to be hanged in the public square would no doubt find it wanting.

Let’s not leave that out. We can’t just vote for an abortionist because he has a good head of hair and think that’s a moral choice.

 

[Tigg]

Once more, I apologize for the mass of stuff, but it really is irritating to me when people say there is “no difference” between the parties when it comes to abortion. It’s just false, and there is the danger that people will despair of doing anything politically to end the evil if they believe nothing can be done politically to end or at least limit it.

And I’m not a Republican. Never have been. I have been a Democrat all my life. Held office in the party. I became inactive when it became abundantly clear to me that the Democrat party doesn’t actually stand for much more than abortion. It abandoned any concern for the truly poor a long time ago. There are probably a few prolife Democrats in office somewhere, but never on my ballot since that time. So, notwithstanding that I am not a Repub, I find myself unable to vote for anyone else. However, since I consider it my moral duty to vote and support prolife candidates in the process, that’s what I do.

Personally, I don’t see how a Catholic who wants to be faithful to the teachings of the Church can do otherwise.

Now RR, if you could just itemize in the same fashion for us, a list of all the ways the Democrats have NOT helped the poor, I’d be most appreciative. I’ll copy and paste it and give you full credit.

I need it really soon because we continue to hear, every other post, how the Republicans hate the poor and only the Dems have done anything to alleviate their situation.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I actually think that is an ad hominem, intended to inflame, but I am open to correction if you want to provide me a source where anyone views it as such.

It is not meant to be an ad hominem.

Go look at Obama’s voting record and what he wrote in his book. If he thought abortion was a bad thing, he would not care if legislation passed that limited it.

But do not pull out on the road without it.

The Federal government requires taxes, for all types of things. I am required to help pay for nuclear weapons, a bridge to nowhere, subsidies to wealthy companies, but shouldn’t have a voice to say, ‘let some of my taxes help the sick, feed the hungry, or give shelter to the poor?’

Well, I guess I have been refuted. Who can argue with that rebuttal?

I’ve seen a few Canadians argue in favor of their healthcare system on these forums.

Whether their systems are inadequate or not, we are Americans; can’t we do it better than anyone else in the world?

Your underlying assumption that is coming across in your posts is that everyone in the medical field is in it for a profit. That is incorrect and tastes like sour grapes. I have connections and know many people in the Medical field - administrators, MD’s, DO’s, nurses, pharmacists. I can patently say that every single one of them got into the field to help others.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is not meant to be an ad hominem.

Go look at Obama’s voting record and what he wrote in his book. If he thought abortion was a bad thing, he would not care if legislation passed that limited it.

That does not make it a sacrament in the eyes of anyone. That’s what you said.

Your underlying assumption that is coming across in your posts is that everyone in the medical field is in it for a profit. That is incorrect and tastes like sour grapes. I have connections and know many people in the Medical field - administrators, MD’s, DO’s, nurses, pharmacists. I can patently say that every single one of them got into the field to help others.

Did you miss that I said I work in EMS? I can look at my paycheck and tell you not everyone makes the big bucks. But many, administrators, MDs, DOs, Nurses, and Pharmacists make much, much more than I do.

An example, the rural hospital that runs our ambulance service, the CEO (Administrator) makes 5 or 6 times as much as I do. It was printed in the local paper when the most recent one was hired.

Let’s not get off track because we can cherry pick situations. I know many who get into it to help people, and just as many that get into it for the money, and that’s not limited through a particular position.

It’s something to see someone argue that medical costs are not astronomical in America. I had to file bankruptcy about 10 years ago because of an acute medical condition.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

AND IF THERE IS AN EQUAL OR GREATER PROPORTIONATE REASON TO DO SO

Let’s not leave that out. We can’t just vote for an abortionist because he has a good head of hair and think that’s a moral choice.

Let’s look at the specific language used.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. 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.]

No ‘equal’ or ‘greater’, or ‘to do so.’

We all have opinions Ridgerunner, please share you opinion of the Bishops having an assembly to specifically discuss the language, and interpretations, and then releasing it unchanged, knowing it was the cause of the controversy that caused millions of Catholics to split evenly in the last election?

 

[JimG]

Let me just add one thing about individual conscience. Conscience is not some free floating feeling that one has about good and bad. Conscience is a moral judgment made by the intellect about the rightness or wrongness of particular actions, and conscience must be properly formed.

One can no more claim freedom of conscience to support evil actions that one can claim freedom of conscience to support incorrect chemical or biological statements. (“Your conscience may tell you that hydrogen has one electron, but I feel in my heart that it has four electrons.”)

And of course, conscience is not infallible, and it is perfectly reasonable to inform someone if their conscience is wrong in its judgments. If my friend’s conscience judges that armed robbery is no evil but simply another way to make a living, I have a duty to correct his conscience, as does he.

 

[Mijoy2]

For the people who claim to have voted for Obama for “social issue” purposes such as sympathy and compassion, I understand and sypathize with their perspective. However there is a fundemental flaw in this perspective.

There is a blood from a rock philosophy here. The democratic party boasts to be more willing to “help the poor”. The question is not what is in their heart the question is what is in their wallet.

Romney, ran on the principle of boosting the economy therefore enabling those who want to help themselves to do so. If this were successful even those who do want a handout are in a better position for getting it in the long term

Obama ran on the principle of helping the needy (or perhaps doing a better job of helping the needy). However his pockets are empty. How much longer can he dole out when there is nothing (or 16 trillion dollars less then nothing) to dole out?

What is it about the debt people who voted for Obama did not understand? The solution is not to “tax the rich”, there is not enough apples in that bag.

Growth, is the only logical answer.

Having said this, I believe in what Holy Mother Church teaches. Even if Obama had the means to write a 16 trillion dollar check towards paying off the debt, I still think we should all go down with the ship before we slaughter another beautiful baby, let alone millions more.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

That does not make it a sacrament in the eyes of anyone. That’s what you said.

I guess the literary concept of analogy went above your head. I am merely pointing out that some people in the government are trying to protect and advance abortion at all costs - i.e. it’s the sacred cow, golden calf, sacrament, or some other religious symbol.

Did you miss that I said I work in EMS? I can look at my paycheck and tell you not everyone makes the big bucks. But many, administrators, MDs, DOs, Nurses, and Pharmacists make much, much more than I do.

An example, the rural hospital that runs our ambulance service, the CEO (Administrator) makes 5 or 6 times as much as I do. It was printed in the local paper when the most recent one was hired.

I read that you are an EMS. I am not trying to discredit you or the work you do.

I am merely pointing out that some of these people have very specialized training and responsibility. As such, we can’t expect to pay them minimum wage.

 

[JMJSHJ]

I don’t trust either party to deliver us. One is no better than the other. It appears some think so highly of their party that one is not allowed to criticize it.

We are not going to find solutions if we cannot get off the far right, or far left. There is a middle ground that could unite the majority. I believe that politically.

After what Ridgerunner posted about the differences that the Bush Administration (REPUBLICANS) versus what the Democrats have done, I don’t know how you can honestly say that one is no better than the other.

BTW you allege that our hard language is uncharitable and is not likely to get more people to “our side”. The facts don’t agree with you on this. Since Roe vs Wade more people are pro life than pro choice for the first time ever.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let me just add one thing about individual conscience. Conscience is not some free floating feeling that one has about good and bad. Conscience is a moral judgment made by the intellect about the rightness or wrongness of particular actions, and conscience must be properly formed.

One can no more claim freedom of conscience to support evil actions that one can claim freedom of conscience to support incorrect chemical or biological statements. (“Your conscience may tell you that hydrogen has one electron, but I feel in my heart that it has four electrons.”)

And of course, conscience is not infallible, and it is perfectly reasonable to inform someone if their conscience is wrong in its judgments. If my friend’s conscience judges that armed robbery is no evil but simply another way to make a living, I have a duty to correct his conscience, as does he.

Jim,
Lapey and I posted much of the Catechism’s teaching on conscience. No one has claimed freedom from the teaching, but the teaching excludes one person telling another that their conscience is wrong. You give an absolute. Voting is not absolute in that we know the intent of any person, good or evil.

I believe the Church does not support a candidate because of the remote possibility of a person later proving to be truly evil and the position it would put the Church in having supported such a person.

On the matter of conscience the Catechism specifically states one should not be forced against their conscience, and it also tells us that one must act according to their conscience under penalty of condemnation.

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

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.

While it speaks of the advice of others, it does not insinuate one person stating another person’s conscience is wrong and should not be followed.