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

[Ridgerunner]

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.

A view so thoroughly protestant that it cannot possibly be the intended meaning of the quote. Since it also contains a glaring typographical error, I suspect it has been inaccurately rendered in other ways.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

A majority is a majority, especially a 7 to 2 majority. If that kind of majority cannot win, even with 2 bad choices, then one can question the sincerity of the argument without being accused of ‘rationalizing for supporting an evil…,’ in my humble opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A view so thoroughly protestant that it cannot possibly be the intended meaning of the quote. Since it also contains a glaring typographical error, I suspect it has been inaccurately rendered in other ways.

I have a fairly good reading comprehension and if it appears Protestant to you, then you are mistaken.

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."

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Sadly, I think its diminishment began a long time ago, because so many Catholics have either been inadequately catechized or have rationalized ways to defend evil because of their personal lives and/or political party affiliations. You don’t have to be on CAF too long to realize that, and CAF is one of the most faithfully Catholic sites to which one can go.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have a fairly good reading comprehension and if it appears Protestant to you, then you are mistaken.

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."

The typo is still there, and so is the misinterpretation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The typo is still there, and so is the misinterpretation.

I have underlined the 4 parts of the quote. It is easy to read, in my opinion. If we still have different interpretations, I don’t know how to explain it any further.

 

[pete_29]

I have a fairly good reading comprehension and if it appears Protestant to you, then you are mistaken.

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."

Do you not see the obvious problem with this. What if you think your conscience is well formed and your conscience tells you to rob a bank.

 

[CaptFun]

In the poker game for a soul Satan upped his side bet - with one “Catholic’s” Guardian Angel.

“I SEE your Jesus on the cross …”

“And I RAISE you an Obama in the White House …”

 

[Ridgerunner]

A majority is a majority, especially a 7 to 2 majority. If that kind of majority cannot win, even with 2 bad choices, then one can question the sincerity of the argument without being accused of ‘rationalizing for supporting an evil…,’ in my humble opinion.

What is this 7-2 majority? That doesn’t correspond to the present composition of the Court, either as to Repub appointees, Catholics or prolife justices.

Catholics are, indeed, a majority on the Court, by a 6 to 3 margin. Republicans are a majority by 5-4, but Kennedy, as I pointed out, is not consistently prolife, notwithstanding that he is a Republican. Four Republican appointees are Catholic and prolife, leaving one Repub appointee who is not consistently prolife, but did at least vote to uphold the partial birth abortion ban.

The Democrat appointees are all pro-abortion, regardless of religion. Of the Democrat appointees, only one is Catholic; Sotomayor, and she was appointed by Obama and supported by NARAL, which pretty much tells you where she stands. Kagan is not Catholic, but she, too, was appointed by Obama and supported by NARAL. Pretty obvious there. No Democrat voted to uphold the partial birth abortion ban.

So the record is this:

Republicans on the Court who have voted prolife-100%
Democrats on the Court who have voted prolife -0%

Republicans on the Court regarded as consistently prolife-80%
Democrats on the Court regarded as EVER prolife -0%

In the face of that, no one could maintain that there is “no difference” between the parties on the abortion issue unless one is simply trying to defend the Dem party’s terrible record by saying what nobody could possibly believe by looking at the facts.

You’re a Democrat, and we get that. But you can’t maintain equivalency between the parties on abortion when it obviously isn’t the reality of the matter.

 

[Lapey]

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.

I believe that is a typo, I’m sure the “not” is a typo. I sent Fr. Serpa a PM, lets see if he answers.

I would believe that a ill-informed conscience, and those of those of no fault, mental or physical ability lacking, would be correct. But I may be wrong on his note. I’m not wrong on church teaching though. There are too many other sources that say just the opposite. And as I said, it must be taken together, not disected.

I don’t see the conflict unless as you pointed out you were to take just the one sentence, as was my first point.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have underlined the 4 parts of the quote. It is easy to read, in my opinion. If we still have different interpretations, I don’t know how to explain it any further.

Still didn’t see either one. Well, okay.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe that is a typo, I’m sure the “not” is a typo. I sent Fr. Serpa a PM, lets see if he answers.

I would believe that a ill-informed conscience, and those of those of no fault, mental or physical ability lacking, would be correct. But I may be wrong on his note. I’m not wrong on church teaching though. There are too many other sources that say just the opposite. And as I said, it must be taken together, not disected.

I don’t see the conflict unless as you pointed out you were to take just the one sentence, as was my first point.

Not being critical of you, and I appreciate your contacting Fr. Serpa for clarification. But when one sees one obvious typo, one has to wonder whether there are others. No offense, pardner.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you not see the obvious problem with this. What if you think your conscience is well formed and your conscience tells you to rob a bank.

The problem with your hypothetical scenario is, the specific question posed to Fr. Serpa was, ‘Is it wrong for a Catholic to vote for Obama?’

Is it wrong for a Catholic to vote for Obama?

Hi,

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. 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.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

All people have an obligation to inform the consciences with the teachings of the Church.

We cannot refuse that obligation.

If we deliberately disobey the moral teaching of the Church, we can sin mortally.

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.

 

[Lapey]

A majority is a majority, especially a 7 to 2 majority. If that kind of majority cannot win, even with 2 bad choices, then one can question the sincerity of the argument without being accused of ‘rationalizing for supporting an evil…,’ in my humble opinion.

What are you arguing for, or against in this statement. This is what I have been trying to get from you from the beginning, what do you believe in? Are you just angry? We had made some headway when you stated that you were “apathetic”. At least that made sense, but still you argue against the republican anything and never against the democrats who 100% of the time vote pro-death. What is your idea to fix this?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What is this 7-2 majority? That doesn’t correspond to the present composition of the Court, either as to Repub appointees, Catholics or prolife justices

During Bush’s 8 years, 2 of which were with a republican controlled house and senate, the justices were 7 appointed by republicans and 2 appointed by democrats.

To be honest, I didn’t read past there when I saw your assumption of me in the bottom of the post, even though I have clarified that more than once.

 

[Lapey]

Not being critical of you, and I appreciate your contacting Fr. Serpa for clarification. But when one sees one obvious typo, one has to wonder whether there are others. No offense, pardner.

No offense to me, thats exactly what I was pointing out. This is a typo.

 

[Lapey]

The problem with your hypothetical scenario is, the specific question posed to Fr. Serpa was, ‘Is it wrong for a Catholic to vote for Obama?’

Is it wrong for a Catholic to vote for Obama?

All people have an obligation to inform the consciences with the teachings of the Church.

We cannot refuse that obligation.

If we deliberately disobey the moral teaching of the Church, we can sin mortally.

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.

Parts in red, can’t you see this makes no gramatical or logical sense? Its a typo, obviously.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No offense to me, thats exactly what I was pointing out. This is a typo.

What are you calling a typo? The ‘not’ might should be a ‘no’?

 

[Lapey]

What are you calling a typo? The ‘not’ might should be a ‘no’?

At best, and at worst the whole statement. It seems to contradict others on the matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Parts in red, can’t you see this makes no gramatical or logical sense? Its a typo, obviously.

But if people sincerely follow their consciences (comma)

What type consciences people need to sincerely follow? We know there’s more than one because it’s ‘whether’.

whether their consciences are well informed (that’s one)

**or through not fault of their own they are not ** (comma) (that’s another one making consciences plural as distinguished by ‘whether’ and showing a different distinction by the use of ‘or’)

**they do not sin by acting on them. **

I’m not an English teacher and don’t know the mechanics, or terminology in parsing a sentence, but you can remove commas and get the gist of a sentence without that which is enclosed in between the commas.

But if people sincerely follow their consciences, they do not sin by acting on them.

That is the sentence without the ‘qualifiers’.