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

[MichaelTDoyle]

The priest apologist on these forums states that no one sins by acting on their consciences.

It is not as clear for all as some find it to be.

I think this is really wise.

Why did people vote? What facts did they have? Did they weigh the facts?
I think there is culpability if there was no effort to discern the truth.

 

[Erich]

I have 15 questions for Obama voters. They are not intended to be post mortem for either side; I simply want to know why so many supported Obama because I frankly do not understand your point of view.

1.President Obama spent about $1.3 Trillion each year in deficit, adding about $5 Trillion to the national debt during his term. He offered no leadership to reduce spending and ignored the recommendations of his own Simpson-Bowles commission. Is this level of deficit spending and Obama’s indifference to it okay with you?
2.Clearly, the president lied when he said everyone/anyone could keep their former health coverage under ObamaCare. The increased requirements for coverage require all who buy insurance to alter their coverage and the existence of a ‘rationing panel’ for Medicare assure that health coverage will change for seniors as well. Is this slight-of-hand by President Obama okay with you?
3.At last count, ObamaCare has about 15 new taxes in it, all timed to begin after the 2012 election. Is that okay with you?
4.Likewise, the president lied about the attack on our Benghazi consulate by spreading the story that a spontaneous mob was involved when the earliest reports said otherwise. The Administration’s story was so consistent that it had to be the product of the president’s own decision to obfuscate. Was his misleading of the American people okay with you?
5.There had been a similar incidence of White House cover-up earlier, when the gun-running project known as Fast and Furious was under investigation. President Obama prevented Congress from obtaining the facts surrounding this horrendously misguided activity by claiming executive privilege after Atty General Holder had exhausted his attempts to hide the truth. Was this cover-up okay with you?
6.Conversely, the Administration readily leaked classified details of the Bin Laden raid, including the name of our operative in Pakistan who is now doing a 30 year jail term for helping us. Seal Team operational methods were also released, all in an effort to create favorable publicity for the Administration’s single foreign policy achievement by making a film about the event. Future special operations of this type are thus put in jeopardy. Is this okay with you?
7.Notwithstanding clear and repeated warnings from several government agencies that both Social Security and Medicare are in dire financial straits, President Obama made no attempt to restructure either program to preserve it. Was this avoidance of a major fiscal issue okay with you?
8.The Obama Administration refused to enforce existing laws regarding immigration and attempted to stop the state of Arizona from dealing with its significant illegal immigration problem that included the murder of a rancher by illegal immigrants… Was the Administration’s action okay with you?
9.President Obama advocates even higher taxes for the wealthy even though the resulting revenue is miniscule. Such tax policy rewards those who take from the public treasury and penalizes those who work hard and earn more. Is that okay with you?
10.Faced with Lockheed-Martin’s need to deliver 60 day layoff notices under the Warren Act just prior to the election, the Obama Administration directed L-M not to do so and promised that the government would cover any cost of failing to comply with the law. This to remove negative news just before the election. Was this violation of the law alright with you?
11.In his initial trip abroad as president, Obama bowed to several foreign heads of state and issued apologies for America ’s behavior? Was this alright with you? What did Americans have to apologize for?
12.In his now-famous aside, President Obama told Russian President Medvedev that he’d (Obama) “have more flexibility after the election.” This apparently referred to the reduction of nuclear weapons the Administration is pursuing with Russia . But regardless of the issue, is it okay for our president to conspire with another nation for something that would be perceived negatively at election time?
13.The Obama Administration sought to grant waivers to the Welfare program’s work requirement passed during the Clinton Administration in spite of the fact that the enacting legislation did not empower the granting of waivers. Do you approve of this flaunting of the law?
14.The restructuring of GM engineered by the Administration ignored the interests of GM shareholders who would normally have first claim on any settlement and granted a sizable share of GM stock to the UAW, which normally would have no standing at all in such a matter. This was an obvious reward to a strong political contributor. Was this okay with you?
15.Secretary of State Hilleary Clinton endorsed the International Arms Control treaty in August 2011. As I understand it, this treaty makes US citizens subject to international law and supersedes the Second Amendment rights Americans now enjoy. Is this subjugation of US law to international law acceptable to you?

I’ve tried hard to stick to facts and believe I’ve done so. I thank you in advance for your response.

Bumping from 40 or so posts ago… because I haven’t seen anyone try to answer any of these questions yet…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think this is really wise.

Why did people vote? What facts did they have? Did they weigh the facts?
I think there is culpability if there was no effort to discern the truth.

Agreed, and the priest apologist’s statement even states such, prior to saying that acting on the well informed, or whether no fault of their own, conscience is not a sin.

Let’s look at what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, and is used in the USCCB Catholic voter’s guide. Why is it safe to assume we can ignore a couple of parts, ‘may be permitted…,’ or ‘…if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion…’, and follow that which seems to indicate an absolute?

As I said, all people are not intellectually or spiritually equal, and some may not have the clarity others claim exists.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Bumping from 40 or so posts ago… because I haven’t seen anyone try to answer any of these questions yet…

Many arguable points Erich, and probably too much to respond to in a single post. Also appears to be issues other than the one we are told by others that outweighs all other issues. Just trying to point this out to you, I did not vote for Obama.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Agreed, and the priest apologist’s statement even states such, prior to saying that acting on the well informed, or whether no fault of their own, conscience is not a sin.

Let’s look at what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, and is used in the USCCB Catholic voter’s guide. Why is it safe to assume we can ignore a couple of parts, ‘may be permitted…,’ or ‘…if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion…’, and follow that which seems to indicate an absolute?

As I said, all people are not intellectually or spiritually equal, and some may not have the clarity others claim exists.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger said

… can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons

You know to know what proportionate reasons are and what they are not to understand the context of that quote. Bishops and Priests who are in a position to say what these are have stated them

 

[NessFrancis]

I’m a regular church goer, I attend confession pretty regularly, go to the chapel once a week for holy hour, and attend a bible study when I can. I voted for Obama. In my opinion, he was the lesser of two evils. Romney was for the rich. He was about to take away all of my assistance that I get and need. The crime and unemployment rate would have skyrocketed with Romney. In the state I live in, California, I can not guarantee that they would assist me, they have a hard enough to with the money as it is right now. There were many reasons why I voted for Obama, none of them had anything to do with gay marital rights or a woman’s right to chose. I have a catholic perspective on that. I voted for the candidate whom I thought had the best overall interest of the people, and not the wealthy corporations. For the past forty years, it seems like every time a republican is in office things get worse: Nixon, Regan, Bush I & II. I don’t trust the republican party. All I see is a conservative facade with greed in their eyes and money in their pockets.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Agreed, and the priest apologist’s statement even states such, prior to saying that acting on the well informed, or whether no fault of their own, conscience is not a sin.

Let’s look at what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, and is used in the USCCB Catholic voter’s guide. Why is it safe to assume we can ignore a couple of parts, ‘may be permitted…,’ or ‘…if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion…’, and follow that which seems to indicate an absolute?

As I said, all people are not intellectually or spiritually equal, and some may not have the clarity others claim exists.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger said

… can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons

You know to know what proportionate reasons are and what they are not to understand the context of that quote. Bishops and Priests who are in a position to say what these are have stated them

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then Cardinal Ratzinger said

You know to know what proportionate reasons are and what they are not to understand the context of that quote. Bishops and Priests who are in a position to say what these are have stated them

Please read post #178.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

… that outweighs all other issues… .

Abortion. The perception that aborting a fetus is not the same as aborting a human is a moral and a teaching problem. We can say that abortion is the taking of a life, but unless a person believes a fetus == a human life the morality will never come into focus.

I know for discussion’s sake people do not like to use religious arguments, but I like to transpose the fetus with Jesus. What if it was Jesus in the womb? Wouldn’t that make a difference to a Christian Catholic? Would a Catholic who believes–even if lapsed–but believes in Christ wouldn’t that provide a moment of clarity? Christ was in the womb and Christ is fully man (and fully God).

Wasn’t Christ fully human at the moment of incarnation? (Yes)
Doesn’t that tell us anything about our own human nature in the womb?

To alter a popular phrase…

What would Mary do?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Abortion. The perception that aborting a fetus is not the same as aborting a human is a moral and a teaching problem. We can say that abortion is the taking of a life, but unless a person believes a fetus == a human life the morality will never come into focus.

I know for discussion’s sake people do not like to use religious arguments, but I like to transpose the fetus with Jesus. What if it was Jesus in the womb? Wouldn’t that make a difference to a Christian Catholic? Would a Catholic who believes–even if lapsed–but believes in Christ wouldn’t that provide a moment of clarity? Christ was in the womb and Christ is fully man (and fully God).

Wasn’t Christ fully human at the moment of incarnation? (Yes)
Doesn’t that tell us anything about our own human nature in the womb?

To alter a popular phrase…

What would Mary do?

I belief life begins at conception, when living cells merge, and should last until natural death. I work EMS and actually had the privilege of assisting in the delivery of 3 babies in the past 12 months.

You’re preaching to the choir; however, I cannot condemn Catholics for their decisions when I can see their point, as I’m explaining in my posts. I am in this because of the way arguments have been argued, before and after the election. I do not believe Mary, or Jesus, would see the body of Christ divided over the issue of politics. We should be working for a conversion of hearts to accomplish our goal. We are not going to convert with less than love and charity required of us all.

 

[Andrew1983]

As much as I dislike Obama’s values and policies, is this sort of language really necessary, helpful, or Christian?

You think that’s bad, you should try Against Helvidius by St. Jerome on defending the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother of God.

Being a Christian is not synonymous with being a doormat.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’m a regular church goer, I attend confession pretty regularly, go to the chapel once a week for holy hour, and attend a bible study when I can. I voted for Obama. In my opinion, he was the lesser of two evils. Romney was for the rich. He was about to take away all of my assistance that I get and need. The crime and unemployment rate would have skyrocketed with Romney. In the state I live in, California, I can not guarantee that they would assist me, they have a hard enough to with the money as it is right now. There were many reasons why I voted for Obama, none of them had anything to do with gay marital rights or a woman’s right to chose. I have a catholic perspective on that. I voted for the candidate whom I thought had the best overall interest of the people, and not the wealthy corporations. For the past forty years, it seems like every time a republican is in office things get worse: Nixon, Regan, Bush I & II.

I don’t trust the republican party. All I see is a conservative facade with greed in their eyes and money in their pockets.

My sentiments precisely.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I have 15 questions for Obama voters. They are not intended to be post mortem for either side; I simply want to know why so many supported Obama because I frankly do not understand your point of view.

Way too many questions asked. Takes too much time to answer. However:

4.Likewise, the president lied about the attack on our Benghazi consulate by spreading the story that a spontaneous mob was involved when the earliest reports said otherwise. The Administration’s story was so consistent that it had to be the product of the president’s own decision to obfuscate. Was his misleading of the American people okay with you?

The whole Bengazi conspiracy theory is right-wing nuttery. Watched too much Fox News lately?

In this story there are a relevant observations (emphases added):

**Republicans ponder painful way forward **

dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=24EC4295-FEEF-42CB-B4F7-52A36B102E57

*More pessimistic Republicans agreed that the party faces fundamental challenges but questioned whether it would make necessary, painful changes while much of the GOP base is enveloped in an parallel-universe mentality, ***with Fox News as its only trusted source of information ***and the memory of the 2010 conservative landslide as its basic framework for understanding politics.

Throughout much of the general election, Republican activists and pundits were more prone to attack the sampling methods of public polls than to consider the possibility that they’d face a historically diverse, unexpectedly Democratic-leaning electorate on Nov. 6. That mind-set of denial collided with objective reality yesterday.

“The conservative media bubble is totally self-defeating for us. It denies us any realistic view of the real world of the general election, assuming instead that all politics is simply an extension of the Republican primary. It blindly drives us off one cliff after another,” said Republican presidential strategist Mike Murphy. “We will not win the real world of big-turnout, presidential-year politics until our bubble realizes that a big world exists outside the precincts of the Republican primary.”

Said Murphy: “Much of the conservative media bubble, with its isolation, denial and semi-paranoia, only incentivized us to lose general elections.”
*

Related:
Whose polls were correct, Quinnipiac etc., or Rasmussen? Rasmussen got smoked all the way. Not to speak of Unskewedpolls.com (woa-haha). But conservatives were in denial until the last minute.

 

[Lapey]

Gary, I don’t doubt your preaching. What about the millions of us who are receiving vague vs clear that don’t match messages? Our faith is not a pick and choose theology. Look up the Florida Bishops voter’s guide, and realize that even it was not mailed to all parishioners. At my parish, we never heard a homily about voting and I didn’t miss a Mass. I never received any instructions through the mail.

The laity knows we all answer ultimately to the Pope, on all faith and moral matters, including the clergy. Without a clarification on the language of what he wrote, it appears that the instruction is complete and that it is intended for Catholics to form their conscience and then vote accordingly. There is no absolute, ‘Catholics cannot, under any circumstance…’ language. No one can honestly argue that. Yes, proportionate can be argued, but it doesn’t remove all applicable interpretations when we see ‘may be permitted…,’ or ‘…if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion…’

There are Bishops who presented the guidance in that fashion, and some even going so far as to say that some were only interpreting so as to narrow the scope of Catholic teaching for their own personal interests.

The priest apologist on these forums states that no one sins by acting on their consciences.

It is not as clear for all as some find it to be.

First off, my name is Rev. Mr. Gary, or Deacon Gary…or Lapey which is my nickname here…thank you.

I only let people I like call me Gary…

I’m kidding! Come on, lighten up!!!

Second, how long will we keep up this circular discussion; it continuously goes back to the same thing, “Cardinal Ratszinger said…but the bishops said…nothing is clear…” It gets old my brother. You have repeatedly taken just a portion of a statement and say what it means, even though it is in direct opposition of the rest of the statement, you have done the same thing with Fr. Serpa’s statement. You and a couple of others have used one sentence of one paragraph to make your point of innocence, while at the same time ignoring the remainder that addresses the reality.

Remember the voice heard from the teacher on the Peanuts cartoon? That’s what this sounds like.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Second, how long will we keep up this circular discussion; it continuously goes back to the same thing, “Cardinal Ratszinger said…but the bishops said…nothing is clear…” It gets old my brother. You have repeatedly taken just a portion of a statement and say what it means, even though it is in direct opposition of the rest of the statement, you have done the same thing with Fr. Serpa’s statement. You and a couple of others have used one sentence of one paragraph to make your point of innocence, while at the same time ignoring the remainder that addresses the reality.

Just as I have taken a portion, you have also taken a portion. Now, those portions are the topic of debate for millions of Catholics. Some take a portion and say, ‘that’s clear,’ without addressing the other discussions. Others take it all and are accused of misinterpreting what is written. What allows us to take a part of them and discard them for other parts?

While it is the same sentences, I have offered various clergy with interpretations I have tried to explain as they appear to be the same as I and others have. I told you about the Florida Bishops voter’s guide and how I received nothing in the mail and have not heard any preaching on elections this entire past year, and I don’t miss Mass. Why are all Catholics held to the same clarity, even though they have different intellects, and spirituality, and do not agree with what the other half of Catholics are saying? So, there are points being raised, but not addressed. If it’s too much blah blah blah, then we can agree to disagree, if that’s what you want.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

SHAME ON THEM!
They are now in MORTAL SIN as is everyone who voted for ANY Democrat

There is a lady named Angela Michael who recently ran for U.S. Congress in Illinois as a Democrat. She is a nurse who operates a “sonogram van” outside of an abortion clinic in Granite City, IL every day, I have worked with her for a long time and she has helped to save hundreds of babies and mothers from abortion. She ran on a strictly pro-life and pro-Catholic platform, she only ran as a Democrat so she would have the chance to be elected.

So would it be better to vote for a pro-abortion/contraception Republican over someone like Angela Michael?

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

I haven’t reviewed many posts on this thread but I am deeply saddened that fellow Catholics have acted against the clear direction of our Bishops. Let’s face it, our Church is suing the Obama administration, a suit that would have promptly ended had Romney won since the mandate to provide insurance coverage for birth control and abortions would have been eliminated by January 21st.

So much for our Church’s role in the United States. We might as well sell our hospitals and other secular endeavors or else face, paying for abortions and birth control or paying huge fines and potential criminal contempt if we do not.

Our Church’s role in society is most assuredly diminishing.

 

[Lapey]

Just as I have taken a portion, you have also taken a portion. Now, those portions are the topic of debate for millions of Catholics. Some take a portion and say, ‘that’s clear,’ without addressing the other discussions. Others take it all and are accused of misinterpreting what is written. What allows us to take a part of them and discard them for other parts?

While it is the same sentences, I have offered various clergy with interpretations I have tried to explain as they appear to be the same as I and others have. I told you about the Florida Bishops voter’s guide and how I received nothing in the mail and have not heard any preaching on elections this entire past year, and I don’t miss Mass. Why are all Catholics held to the same clarity, even though they have different intellects, and spirituality, and do not agree with what the other half of Catholics are saying? So, there are points being raised, but not addressed. If it’s too much blah blah blah, then we can agree to disagree, if that’s what you want.

This is the quote;

“All people have an obligation to inform their consciences regarding the moral choices they make in life. For Catholics to deliberately refuse to inform their consciences with the teachings of the Church or if they deliberately disobey the moral teaching of the Church, they can sin mortally if the choice is a serious one.”

My words here:
If this portion is true, and it is, and the teachings of the Church are clear, and they are, and we are exposed to them as you and me have been, but we obstinately choose to act in opposition to that truth, we are in mortal sin by this action.

“But if people sincerely follow their consciences, whether their consciences are well informed or through not fault of their own they are not, they do not sin by acting on them.”

We are not in mortal sin if we are not taught the proper teachings, or we are ignorant of them, or we cannot understand them because of some mental or physical limitation.

These two paragraphs work in tandem, they are not opposed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is the quote;

“All people have an obligation to inform their consciences regarding the moral choices they make in life. For Catholics to deliberately refuse to inform their consciences with the teachings of the Church or if they deliberately disobey the moral teaching of the Church, they can sin mortally if the choice is a serious one.”

If this portion is true, and it is, and the teachings of the Church are clear, and they are, and we are exposed to them as you and me have been, but we obstinately choose to act in opposition to that truth, we are in mortal sin by this action.

But if people sincerely follow their consciences, whether their consciences are well informed or through not fault of their own they are not, they do not sin by acting on them."

We are not in mortal sin if we are not taught the proper teachings, or we are ignorant of them, or we cannot understand them because of some mental or physical limitation.

These two paragraphs work in tandem, they are not opposed.

Sorry, I disagree with ‘we are not in mortal sin if we are not taught the proper teachings…’

The quote plainly states, ‘…whether their consciences are well informed…’ The sentence then changes attention to others that, ‘…or through not fault of their own they are not…’

Either of those, well informed of Church teachings and those not through fault of their own, they do not sin by acting on their consciences.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The republicans have, and still, enjoy a majority on the supreme court.

Kennedy is a Catholic and a Repub. He has not been particularly prolife, and that is bad, and was a bad appointment by Bush Sr. But he did at least join with the other Repubs in upholding the ban on partial birth abortion with Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, all Catholics and all Repubs and all opposed by the abortion lobby.

All Democrat appointees, of course, voted to keep partial birth abortion legal on demand.

Now, out of the Repub appointees on the Court, 80% are regarded as prolife, and 100% voted prolife at least once (on partial birth abortion). That record is much better than that of Catholics generally (about 63% oppose abortion entirely). It’s a shame that so many Catholics in the U.S. are not prolife, but the record of the Repub appointees to the Supreme Court in the last couple of decades is a lot better than that.

Among Democrat appointees, of course the prolife record is 0%, far worse than Catholics generally or the public at large and even worse than that of Democrats generally, though close.

Yes, I know some Democrats still argue that just because the Repub record on the Court isn’t 100% prolife 100% of the time, that somehow justifies supporting a party whose appointees’ record on the Court is 0% prolife 100% of the time. A rationalization for supporting evil if ever there was one.