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

[Erich]

The whole Bengazi conspiracy theory is right-wing nuttery.

I wasn’t aware that CBS News is now the source of “right-wing nuttery.” Since at least the 1990’s CBS has been known to stand for “Clinton Broadcasting System”

From this link (emphases mine):

It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Muammar Qaddafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.
…
The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.
…
Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack. Still, days later, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said the attack began as a spontaneous protest over the film.
…

 

[Mickey]

That’s what happens when we mix spiritual with political.

There is no mixing. It is very cut and dry. It is very clear.

One party stands for life. The other party stands for abortion on demand.

One party stands for the Biblical definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The other party wants to legalize homosexual unions and call it marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Yes, we can offer advice; but, it ends there. We cannot tell one their conscience is explicitly 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 point out sins, venial and mortal. Then we leave each to his own conscience. Who are we to say they did not seek truth faithfully and make a decision from their conscience, as the Church instructs. We cannot, because we cannot see the intent of another person’s heart.

Why do you suppose to know what we ‘two’ believe?

We believe in a different way to approach the fight, with the love and charity required of all believers as Christ taught, and the Church teaches.

I’ve explained it, fairly specifically, and deny it’s ‘selfish’. We have witnessed the political way of battling abortion, which has not brought about changes and also has appearances of selfish reasons, or personal political interests. That’s ‘man’s’ way, and it’s failing miserably. Christ sought a conversion of hearts, and the Church is teaching evangelizing to the faith. We cannot teach morality of the Church, without the teachings of the Church.

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.

No disrespect intended, but please explain how ‘lesser of two evils’ is less than ‘lukewarm’. That’s what we’re told referencing partisan politics, ‘you must choose the lesser of two evils.’

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.

I have referenced Christ, and Church teachings, over politics, and now I am accused of wanting to ‘secularize’ and told that’s my choice. The accusations are contrary to the arguments I have made. Catholics should be able to discuss topics in honesty, but don’t speak against, or question, politics.

We both speak for the right side of issues, and as I’ve pointed out, I reference Christ’s words through scriptures, and Church teachings.

The second part of Fr. Serpa’s words fits very well with the Catechism teaching on conscience, in my honest opinion. We cannot apply error to another person’s conscience.

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???

No, do not give up to secularism and do not rely on secularism to provide spiritual. They are two separate things. We continue our faith and place our hope in One. We seek conversions of the hearts. We cannot do that if we alienate those that need conversion. We must continue with love and charity in all things.

I have criticized the two party system and how it gives nothing but the status quo.

God could force His will, but does not. We cannot force His will through legislation. We should legislate for the good of society, but it will not stop the evils, or short falls.

I have clearly shown the language that causes debate and divisions among Catholics. Either it is as it should be, or we would have a united instruction to remove all questions, debate, or doubts. One side cannot claim ‘clarity’ when we have different views being taught by different clergy, simply because they find a view that fits their own.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no mixing. It is very cut and dry. It is very clear.

One party stands for life. The other party stands for abortion on demand.

One party stands for the Biblical definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The other party wants to legalize homosexual unions and call it marriage.

And both parties pander…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

And when they had the administration, house, senate, and supreme court, there was inaction.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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?

There is one already in charge of Catholics, worldwide. He wrote the words that are the subject of debate, pitting Catholics against Catholics. He can speak, if a correction is truly needed, or he can leave it as it is if it is as intended, that individuals should form their consciences and act on them. There are no teachings that give another the authority to declare a conscience incorrect, or that a specific conclusion must be arrived at through making a decision through a faith formed conscience.

What’s your plan? Keep supporting Republicans and criticizing democrats, neither of who have acted fully in accordance with Catholic teaching?

Come on, I have said it’s the two party system that creates the status quo.

If I am misinterpreting documents, I assure you it is NOT deliberate, and I don’t believe it’s deliberate on ALL people who interpret it the same. What you offer in rebuttal is an ‘interpretation’.

 

[Mickey]

And both parties pander…

Cop out response.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Cop out response.

Sorry, I see it as factual. Both sides are human, to err is human. Any higher expectation is unrealistic. Both sides run on other issues. No matter which side is in power, the status quo remains on important issues and the other issues are promoted.

There is One that is good…

 

[DLG123]

I am absolutly flabergasted that so many Catholics are blind to this man… He supports FORCING Catholic Hospitals and Charitable institusions to provide abortions and contraception under threat of penalty… Isnt that the FIRST non-negotiable to NOT support abortion?. He supports not only abortion but late term and partial birth abortion. Make NO mistake that by voting for Obama that you DID cast your vote to support his radical veiws on abortion… You can tell yourself all day long that you didnt support abortion but make no mistake you and I will now be fully funding it through our tax dollars.

I have read many people on this particular thread (including a semenarian) who have said that they voted for Obama because of the social issues… Im curious as to which “social” policies you are refering to? Please be specific!

Is giving away free phones and increasing the welfare and food stamp roles this important to you? That is creating a permanent under class that will have a constant erroding work ethic and diminished skill sets which will make it harder and harder to get jobs. In other words they will become slaves to the government handouts and in particular their democratic masters who are more than willing to bankrupt our country to give it to them. I am no replublican apologist as they have been the problem as well. But their is a difference in hitting a brick wall at 40 mph and 100 mph one you can survive the other… Not so muc. This debt is going to crush our children and their children. The higher taxes WILL errode the amount of money coming into the Churches, your coffers will dry up and eventually become unable to help those and who need our help.

Peace

DLG

 

[Lapey]

No, do not give up to secularism and do not rely on secularism to provide spiritual. They are two separate things. We continue our faith and place our hope in One. We seek conversions of the hearts. We cannot do that if we alienate those that need conversion. We must continue with love and charity in all things.

I have criticized the two party system and how it gives nothing but the status quo.

God could force His will, but does not. We cannot force His will through legislation. We should legislate for the good of society, but it will not stop the evils, or short falls.

I have clearly shown the language that causes debate and divisions among Catholics. Either it is as it should be, or we would have a united instruction to remove all questions, debate, or doubts. One side cannot claim ‘clarity’ when we have different views being taught by different clergy, simply because they find a view that fits their own.

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.

 

[pete_29]

I thought we were supposed to choose between the lesser of two weevils. Sorry just trying lighten the mood a bit.

 

[Lapey]

There is one already in charge of Catholics, worldwide. He wrote the words that are the subject of debate, pitting Catholics against Catholics. He can speak, if a correction is truly needed, or he can leave it as it is if it is as intended, that individuals should form their consciences and act on them. There are no teachings that give another the authority to declare a conscience incorrect, or that a specific conclusion must be arrived at through making a decision through a faith formed conscience.

What’s your plan? Keep supporting Republicans and criticizing democrats, neither of who have acted fully in accordance with Catholic teaching?

Come on, I have said it’s the two party system that creates the status quo.

If I am misinterpreting documents, I assure you it is NOT deliberate, and I don’t believe it’s deliberate on ALL people who interpret it the same. What you offer in rebuttal is an ‘interpretation’.

This is a straw man argument. The two party system is what we have, get over it. There were two viable candidates from the two parties in this race. One party declares it supports intrinsic evils and by action has. The other does not declare to support these or any evils, yet are accused of evil and not being trustworthy. A little suspicious i think.

Most importantly, I do not support a party, I support Church teachings. If the dems would have an acceptable platform and candidate, I would choose form the new evidence which side is more acceptable from that evidence. As of now one party has disqualified itself by its own proclamation.

Call me whatever, I am Catholic! Period. I make no apologies for being and acting Catholic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Truth does not change, what changes is the delivery method of truth and that delivery causes alienation. This does exclude that some have a ‘hardness of heart’, but includes the method of delivery as a possible cause of some of those to have ‘hardness of heart’.

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.

Christ did not teach, there will come a time you must not use love and charity to save my Church. He taught that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and that He would be with it until the consummation of the world.

He also taught of the persecutions, where we would have to take up our cross and follow Him. He taught to turn the other cheek, to love even your enemies and do good to them that persecute you.

I say I oppose both, because that is the truth. Ironically, I continue to have the same defense of Republicans brought up, repeatedly. The two party system has worked against the citizen.

I am only speaking up now because of the despair, doubting other person’s faith, name calling, and other lacks of charity that is required of us all, through Christ’s teachings and the teachings still from the Church.

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.

Exactly; however, please show me where one can state emphatically that another conscience is wrong, or not conforming?

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

 

[Mickey]

Sorry, I see it as factual. Both sides are human, to err is human. Any higher expectation is unrealistic. Both sides run on other issues.

But that is a cop out response. This is factual and pertains to our faith and our conscience:

One party stands for life. The other party stands for abortion on demand.

One party stands for the Biblical definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The other party wants to legalize homosexual unions and call it marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is a straw man argument. The two party system is what we have, get over it. There were two viable candidates from the two parties in this race. One party declares it supports intrinsic evils and by action has. The other does not declare to support these or any evils, yet are accused of evil and not being trustworthy. A little suspicious i think.

Most importantly, I do not support a party, I support Church teachings. If the dems would have an acceptable platform and candidate, I would choose form the new evidence which side is more acceptable from that evidence. As of now one party has disqualified itself by its own proclamation.

Call me whatever, I am Catholic! Period. I make no apologies for being and acting Catholic.

We have our Church, which is above either political party. We are a part of God’s kingdom, which is above ALL things.

That is how your conscience leads you, and you must follow your conscience. As I’ve stated that all are not equal intellectually, or spiritually. We are always growing. We are where the Holy Spirit has us in each moment. It is according to His purpose. We cannot explicitly speak against another person’s conscience.

We have language that is in the middle of this debate. The Bishops were aware of the arguments of the verbiage, and revisited the voter’s guide prior to this election. After their assembly of Bishops, in the US, the guide was released without any changes.

Does an assembly of Bishops have access to the Vatican, either directly to the Holy Father, or one of his representatives?

Is it possible that the assembly released the voter’s guide without changes, because of the influence in consciences a change would have made and thereby been against the teaching on consciences? To have stated it was a misinterpretation, either way, would have given influence over consciences, one way or the other.

There is some credibility to that line of thought when we consider the clarity of statements received. How many Bishops are there in America? How many spoke publicly, one way or the other on the election? Of those that did speak, how many actually named candidates?

I am Christian, and a member of the Catholic Church, and I believe in all it teaches. To me there is nothing to apologize for because of that, for either of us. I to act Catholic, but sometimes have others who look at me for other reasons and question my Catholicity.

We are both Catholic. While our consciences may not be the same on all issues, they are the same on the issues infallibly instructed to each of us. Also, our consciences may lead us down different paths of achievement.

He who is for you, cannot be against you.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I wasn’t aware that CBS News is now the source of “right-wing nuttery.” Since at least the 1990’s CBS has been known to stand for “Clinton Broadcasting System”

From this link (emphases mine):

It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Muammar Qaddafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.
…
The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.
…
Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack. Still, days later, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said the attack began as a spontaneous protest over the film.
…

The article was written on Oct. 27. In hindsight, when all the facts are known, people are always smarter. At the time, Sept. 16, that ambassador Suzan Rice did her rounds on the networks, for example, things were much more muddled. There was no cover-up conspiracy; the conspiracy theory, promoted by right-wing pundits and Fox News, among others, began around that time.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is no mixing. It is very cut and dry. It is very clear.

One party stands for life. The other party stands for abortion on demand.

One party stands for the Biblical definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The other party wants to legalize homosexual unions and call it marriage.

In the latest Congress, the following prolife bills were passed in the House. None were passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

1.REPEAL OBAMACARE(01/19/2011)Sponsored by pro-life House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), H.R. 2 would completely repeal the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA). The massive health care restructuring law that was enacted in March 2010 (Public Law 111-148), is known as “ObamaCare” and passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 245 to 189. (Roll Call No. 14) The repeal bill was supported by 242 Republicans and 3 Democrats. All 189 opponents were Democrats. H.R. 2 was then sent to the U.S. Senate for possible further action. Failed to pass Senate.
2.DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD(Pence Amendment) (02/08/2011)During consideration of an appropriations bill (H.R. 1) to fund all federal agencies through September 30, 2011, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) offered an amendment to prohibit any federal funds, from any program, from going to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) or its affiliates, which were listed by name in the text of the amendment. The Pence Amendment was adopted, 240 to 185, with 1 House member voting “present” and 7 members not voting. (Roll Call No. 93) The Pence Amendment was supported by 230 Republicans and 10 Democrats. It was opposed by 7 Republicans and 178 Democrats. H.R. 1 was not approved by the Senate and did not become law. More
3.Block funding for Obama health care law(04/14/2011)H. Con. Res. 35, sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), was a measure to block funding for implementation of President Obama’s 2010 health care law (the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” or PPACA) for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. It passed the House on April 14, 2011, by a vote of 240 to 185. (Roll Call No. 270) The bill was supported by 237 Republicans and 3 Democrats. All 185 opponents were Democrats. The bill was then sent to the Senate, which defeated it the same day. More
4.Cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood(04/14/2011)H. Con. Res. 36 was a bill to cut off all federal funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates, for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. On April 14, 2011, the bill passed the House, 241 to 185, with 1 House member voting “present” and 5 members not voting. The bill was supported by 231 Republicans and 10 Democrats. It was opposed by 7 Republicans and 178 Democrats. (Roll Call No. 271.) The House then sent the bill to the Senate, which defeated it later on the same day. More
5.No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act(05/04/2011)The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), would establish a permanent prohibition of subsidies for abortion and health insurance coverage of abortion in federal programs — both longstanding federal programs and the health care law signed by President Obama in 2010. The bill also would close certain loopholes that give tax-preferred status to abortion, and would codify and strengthen existing conscience protections for pro-life health care providers. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3 on May 4, 2011, by a vote of 251 to 175. (Roll Call No. 292) The bill was supported by 235 Republicans and 16 Democrats. It was opposed by 175 Democrats and no Republicans. Six House members did not vote, and two seats were vacant. Senate has not passed. More
6.Use of federal funds to train abortionists; conscience protection(Foxx Amendment) (05/25/2011)This roll call vote occurred on an amendment offered by pro-life Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) to a bill (H.R. 1216) dealing with a program that provides federal funds to help community-based “teaching health centers” to train residents in certain fields of medicine. The Foxx Amendment would prohibit the federal funds from being used to perform abortions or to train doctors to perform abortions, with narrow exceptions. The Foxx Amendment also prohibited any medical center receiving funds from this program from discriminating against any doctor, nurse, or other health care provider on grounds that the provider refused to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” The Foxx Amendment was adopted 234-182. (Roll Call No. 338) It was supported by 221 Republicans and 13 Democrats. It was opposed by 10 Republicans and 172 Democrats. H.R. 1216, as amended, was then approved on May 25, 2011 and sent to the U.S. Senate for consideration. Has not passed the Senate. More
7.Protect Life Act(10/13/2011)This bill, H.R. 358 introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) would repeal and/or correct all of the pro-abortion components of Public Law 111-148 (ObamaCare). It would prohibit any ObamaCare program from paying for elective abortion or health plans that cover elective abortion, and it would increase legal protections for pro-life health care providers who do not wish to participate in providing abortions. On October 13, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 358 by a roll call vote of 251 to 172. (Roll Call No. 789) The bill was supported by 236 Republicans and 15 Democrats. Voting against it were 170 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Sent to the U.S. Senate for possible further action.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But that is a cop out response. This is factual and pertains to our faith and our conscience:

One party stands for life. The other party stands for abortion on demand.

One party stands for the Biblical definition of marriage between one man and one woman. The other party wants to legalize homosexual unions and call it marriage.

While one party claims to stand for Biblical, it lacks Biblical support of itself. We are Christians, follower of the King. In a Kingdom, there is no democracy, where we could possibly be misled.

So no, again I do not see a cop out response, but guess I cannot express it for you to understand. I apologize for my shortcomings and will leave is as ‘agree to disagree’.

 

[pete_29]

The article was written on Oct. 27. In hindsight, when all the facts are known, people are always smarter. At the time, Sept. 16, that ambassador Suzan Rice did her rounds on the networks, for example, things were much more muddled. There was no cover-up conspiracy; the conspiracy theory, promoted by right-wing pundits and Fox News, among others, began around that time.

Was the Obama administration blameless?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In the latest Congress, the following prolife bills were passed in the House. None were passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

We can only speculate on what the outcomes would have been if the repeals were limited to protect religious liberty, and remove any coverages for abortion.

Do you think that there is a medium which both sides could agree on the desire to provide healthcare to all citizens of the US?