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

[Prodigal_Son1]

God does not interfere with free will. We all have the right to turn our backs on God and support evil. It makes me sad to think that a Catholic would do such a thing. In my eyes, that is a betrayal of God.

That’s assuming that one votes to support an evil. Of those on these forums that have stated they voted for Obama, none of them said they did it to support the evil policies. That’s the language in the voter’s guide, as written by the Pope, that we’ve been discussing.

[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.]

 

[oldcelt]

Vacation plans all over the country are changing as we speak.

It was fun when I lived there in 1978-79…but wow

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree about abortion, but we have to take a new approach. We can’t wait until nominees are chosen and tell everyone, you have to forget all issues because we have these non negotiable issues.

A better example would be to show that by getting to our politicians and telling them to knock the stuff off. Everyone holds Democrats responsible for pro choice issues, even though not all Democrats are pro choice. Well it works two ways, We set an example by getting Republicans to change their position on lesser issues and then they’re not distracting in an election. Abortion wins!!

That’s the same as telling a voter, you can’t weigh lesser issues because of the non negotiable issues.

Pro life politicians, lesser issues are not as important and concessions must be made on them so that we can advance the pro life position.

What’s wrong with that?

There is manifestly no possibility of simply avoiding all national issues. I was not suggesting that. However, I would also say that if Obama and his people want to accomplish some objective of lesser import than the preservation of human life, but keep human life “off the table”, then Obama’s particular objectives which would require compromise by prolifers in other ways, should also be “off the table”.

I do not favor prolife legislators giving in to his anti-life policies and then, having surrendered on the most important issue of all, proceeding to further compromise their positions in other ways. That was his “Notre Dame Doctrine”. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now. Nor do I favor the idea of Catholic laypersons doing it either. If we don’t stand for human life, we stand for nothing and need not pretend that we do just because we care about lesser things. That is precisely what has been wrong with the “Catholic vote” for a very long time; abandonment of the most important moral principles in order to gain crumbs from the imperial table. Put another way, selling our birthright for pottage, as Esau did. It’s just as foolish and wrong for us as it was for Esau.

By way of example: Although I know Boehner will cave on the “tax the rich” (upper middle class, really) Obama formulation, in my opinion Boehner should, at minimum:

1. Raise it to affect only the truly rich. There are too many farmers, small business people and people who live in super-high cost places that will be hit hard by a tax increase on incomes over $200,000.00, and the price to the economy is too high. Set it at $1,000,000, even though neither increase will significantly dent the deficit. Index it for the inflation that sooner or later will push nearly everybody’s income to $200,000 and a hamburger’s cost to $200.
2. Insist that the HHS contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization mandate be completely withdrawn in exchange, along with a commitment not to fund abortions under Obamacare under any guise, with the two tied together so re-imposing it or funding abortion under Obamacare (or mandating coverage for it) under any government program, would automatically lower the tax increase on “the rich”, granting any affected “rich” citizen the power to sue the government to enforce the agreement if the government breaks it.

People who do politics for a living could surely come up with more and better ways. But letting Obama’s abortion-promoting policies (and oppression of religion) go and compromising on, say, higher taxes in exchange for some reduction in the rate of increase in funding the Obscene Arts or something? No. Just no.

L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is manifestly no possibility of simply avoiding all national issues. I was not suggesting that. However, I would also say that if Obama and his people want to accomplish some objective of lesser import than the preservation of human life, but keep human life “off the table”, then Obama’s particular objectives which would require compromise by prolifers in other ways, should also be “off the table”.

I do not favor prolife legislators giving in to his anti-life policies and then, having surrendered on the most important issue of all, proceeding to further compromise their positions in other ways. That was his “Notre Dame Doctrine”. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now. Nor do I favor the idea of Catholic laypersons doing it either. If we don’t stand for human life, we stand for nothing and need not pretend that we do just because we care about lesser things. That is precisely what has been wrong with the “Catholic vote” for a very long time; abandonment of the most important moral principles in order to gain crumbs from the imperial table. Put another way, selling our birthright for pottage, as Esau did. It’s just as foolish and wrong for us as it was for Esau.

By way of example: Although I know Boehner will cave on the “tax the rich” (upper middle class, really) Obama formulation, in my opinion Boehner should, at minimum:

1. Raise it to affect only the truly rich. There are too many farmers, small business people and people who live in super-high cost places that will be hit hard by a tax increase on incomes over $200,000.00, and the price to the economy is too high. Set it at $1,000,000, even though neither increase will significantly dent the deficit. Index it for the inflation that sooner or later will push nearly everybody’s income to $200,000 and a hamburger’s cost to $200.
2. Insist that the HHS contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization mandate be completely withdrawn in exchange, along with a commitment not to fund abortions under Obamacare under any guise, with the two tied together so re-imposing it or funding abortion under Obamacare (or mandating coverage for it) under any government program, would automatically lower the tax increase on “the rich”, granting any affected “rich” citizen the power to sue the government to enforce the agreement if the government breaks it.

People who do politics for a living could surely come up with more and better ways. But letting Obama’s abortion-promoting policies (and oppression of religion) go and compromising on, say, higher taxes in exchange for some reduction in the rate of increase in funding the Obscene Arts or something? No. Just no.

L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace!

I’m not so sure politicians, even those who claim to be pro life, place life issues as part of their bargaining on issues. That is a common sense approach, and we’re talking about politics. I always tease my co workers who make suggestions that make sense where I work, ‘there you go applying logic…’ I’m not saying we need to give on life issues, but get gains on life issues by giving on economical and other issues.

But, for armchair politicians like us, we should be seeking leaders who match the majority of people’s views, for all future elections.

 

[ZRight]

Blessed Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae that it is legitimate for a legislator to vote for a more restrictive law regarding abortion over a less restrictive law. He wrote: “This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects, in order to prevent worse legislation from being adopted.”

the Jesuit moralist Father Henry Davis wrote in the 1930s, “It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate, or unless compelled by fear of great personal harm, relatively greater than the public harm at stake.”

Given the choice would Jesus have voted for Herod or Pilate or neither? In governmental elections is there ever anyone to vote for but Herod or Pilate? Since the make-believe lesser of two evils standard is still evil, why not just write-in “Lucifer” as your vote?

 

[Sarcelle]

Legal does NOT mean it is lawful. It only means that it is impractical to legally ban it though it is wrong. All evil cannot have legislations. There can be NO legal action possible against atheists. Elected people’s representatives have an unalienable right to legislate as deemed fit after much deliberation, discussion and debates. That does not mean they are legalizing some wrongs; they are merely letting people be their own judges for certain wrongs.

In that case they should decriminalize polygamy. It is very hard to enforce after all.

However abortion was deemed illegal back in the past and in some countries is still illegal. So there is precedence. This evil of abortion had been legislated before in the case of the U.S. and in some countries today.

 

[JimG]

Given the choice would Jesus have voted for Herod or Pilate or neither? In governmental elections is there ever anyone to vote for but Herod or Pilate? Since the make-believe lesser of two evils standard is still evil, why not just write-in “Lucifer” as your vote?

Let’s see: unlimited abortion on demand, taxpayer funded, one million abortions per year OR limited, restricted abortion, restrictions which would cut it by 90%.

…Well, might as well vote for Lucifer, since both choices are evil. No point in trying to save any children at all. You seem to be saying that all politicians are created equally evil. But that’s just not true.

 

[jediliz]

I didn’t say business owners and CEOs are not hard workers. I said we all need to be paying an equal percentage of tax, on all monies considered income.

Dump the IRS and start collecting taxes through dollars spent.

Next, watch Colorado and see how the local economy goes with it’s new tourism incentive. There may be some tax dollars there that the feds may want to reconsider.

I’ll never go to Colorado again after they voted for Obama. Not that there’s anything to miss except ears popping in the car while driving in the mountains and getting sick if you don’t prepare yourself for the altitude (my dad got sick the last time we were there).

I hope that our pastors and assistant pastors will do a better job of talking about the moral issues in this country (and do it without fear of the IRS…these are NOT poltiical issues…they are MORAL issues). And I hope people that voted democrat realize most democrat politicians want to get more people, such as the Obama PHONE LADY, to stay on government handouts. After all, didn’t Obama waive the work requirement for welfare? I’m for helping the poor get back on their feet and getting a good job so they can be WEANED off food stamps, etc. I’m also for getting the **fraud in the food stamps program **cracked down on.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not so sure politicians, even those who claim to be pro life, place life issues as part of their bargaining on issues. That is a common sense approach, and we’re talking about politics. I always tease my co workers who make suggestions that make sense where I work, ‘there you go applying logic…’ I’m not saying we need to give on life issues, but get gains on life issues by giving on economical and other issues.

But, for armchair politicians like us, we should be seeking leaders who match the majority of people’s views, for all future elections.

I could not possibly be more serious about what I said, at least by way of example.

Obama would find it hard not to do it. He has made his brags about how he’s going to hit the “rich”; make them pay their “fair share”. It has been his mantra forever, and it is crucial to the mental well-being his left wing constituency and his populist image.

On the other hand, the HHS mandate cannot possibly be crucial to very many, other than his most radical abortionist supporters; the ones in the death business themselves. He could even get a photo op out of making the agreement; something like a warm handshake with Cdl Dolan on the cover of Time, perhaps, if Time still exists then.
He could claim it was all a big misunderstanding about that, but by golly he got those awful “rich” people without having to make the public stare overlong into the maw of the “fiscal cliff” to do it.

And if Boehner proposed it and Obama rejected it? Then it will be Obama who protected the awful “rich” in order to knock the Catholic Church. Even those who don’t like the Church particularly will think he made a poor decision by refusing it. What’s a few Catholic nuns who don’t have to pay for abortifacients, after all, compared to the satisfaction of “soaking the rich”?

 

[ZRight]

Let’s see: unlimited abortion on demand, taxpayer funded, one million abortions per year OR limited, restricted abortion, restrictions which would cut it by 90%.

…Well, might as well vote for Lucifer, since both choices are evil. No point in trying to save any children at all. You seem to be saying that all politicians are created equally evil. But that’s just not true.

“It is here that Nonviolent Jesus of the Gospels, the Incarnation of God, who teaches a Way of Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies creates a krisis, a time of judgment, a moment of decision with eternal significance for those who believe in Him. Do they follow the local, humanly created moral mythology and participate in the election of the communities designated killer or do they follow the Nonviolent Jesus of the Gospels and the will of the Father of all as revealed by Him, and disassociate themselves in every way from the pomp, and snares and deceits of violence and enmity?”

Of course they’re not all evil. Take Ron Paul for example. I advocate for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. However, we won’t get there by waiting for a Supreme Court to do it. All Congress has to do pass a bill to remove the Supreme Courts Federal jurisdiction on it and we can repeal Roe v Wade. WE should have repealed it when the Right to Life majority was in office.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not at all sure of this. Maybe some constitutional scholar in here can tell us. But right now, Roe is “the law of the land” as surely as if it was part of the Constitution. If jurisdiction over abortion is removed, all that does is lock it in, seems to me.

 

[tskrobacz]

It says in the Bible that not everyone is given the same gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit moves through all of God’s creation, but the Holy Spirit gift of infallibility rests solely with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Christ said to Peter, “on this rock I will build my Church”. He didn’t say on this rock I will build my churches. And our Pope is the only one who is the successor to Peter and who therefore carries on that office.

Who then is the church? The institutional church of Rome or the mystical Body of Christ?

 

[ZRight]

I’m not at all sure of this. Maybe some constitutional scholar in here can tell us. But right now, Roe is “the law of the land” as surely as if it was part of the Constitution. If jurisdiction over abortion is removed, all that does is lock it in, seems to me.

I’m no Constitutional scholar but the Constitution was created so that any man can read it and understand it. It is not as complicated as liberals/ courts would like you to believe it is. Abortion is also not the law of the land because I do not see anything in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to get involved in abortion (also courts do not have the power to legislate law only to interpret it). It is liberals who have a loose interpretation of it that use it to do whatever they want.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

By removing jurisdiction, the authority goes back to the states (as it is supposed to be per the Constitution) and at the very least there are states that would ban abortions in all cases whatsoever. This would at least limit abortions as opposed to having it legal in all 50 states.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m no Constitutional scholar but the Constitution was created so that any man can read it and understand it. It is not as complicated as liberals/ courts would like you to believe it is. Abortion is also not the law of the land because I do not see anything in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to get involved in abortion (also courts do not have the power to legislate law only to interpret it). It is liberals who have a loose interpretation of it that use it to do whatever they want.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

By removing jurisdiction, the authority goes back to the states (as it is supposed to be per the Constitution) and at the very least there are states that would ban abortions in all cases whatsoever. This would at least limit abortions as opposed to having it legal in all 50 states.

I’m not a bit sure of this.

The Supremes have said that abortion is IN the Constitution, in effect, as surely as if it was written in there word for word. If their jurisdiction is taken away, can it be retroactive back to 1973? I have my doubts.

 

[ZRight]

I’m not a bit sure of this.

The Supremes have said that abortion is IN the Constitution, in effect, as surely as if it was written in there word for word. If their jurisdiction is taken away, can it be retroactive back to 1973? I have my doubts.

Yes, if Congress removes the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction then we can at least return to how it was before Roe v Wade. When the Constitution was created Congress was meant to be the strongest branch and the Judiciary was supped to be the weakest.

THE ONLY LIMITS ON THIS POWER: Congress may not strip the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction over those cases that fall under the Court’s original jurisdiction defined in the U.S. Constitution, and instead Congress can only limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in, "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party…

Here is an example of Legislation by Congess that would have done just that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

I believe this is the only way that we will get rid of Roe v Wade because the Supreme Court will never repeal it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, if Congress removes the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction then we can at least return to how it was before Roe v Wade. When the Constitution was created Congress was meant to be the strongest branch and the Judiciary was supped to be the weakest.

THE ONLY LIMITS ON THIS POWER: Congress may not strip the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction over those cases that fall under the Court’s original jurisdiction defined in the U.S. Constitution, and instead Congress can only limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in, "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party…

Here is an example of Legislation by Congess that would have done just that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

I believe this is the only way that we will get rid of Roe v Wade because the Supreme Court will never repeal it.

But can they do it retroactively. That’s the question, isn’t it?

 

[SeekingHisMercy]

If you are “Catholic” (universal) then you are aware that the Spirit moves in all of creation and God’s sun shines on all of his creation. Anything short of that is just fundamentalism.

Again, I will point out that my remarks have nothing to do with fundamentalism or the Fundamentalist movement. I would challenge you to pick up the Scriptures and the Catechism and show me where I’ve erred. I will absolutely submit to the authority and teaching of the Church and will be happy to apologize where any of my remarks have gone against the Church.

The fullness of what God has revealed about Truth resides in the teaching of the Catholic Church and anything outside of that teaching which shows the beauty and truth of God will not contradict that teaching.

I have responded to your previous posts regarding President Obama & abortion and the Church’s stance against abortion, as well as the other points you’ve made. We are called to give a reason for the hope in Christ that we have as Catholics.

I would again challenge you to support your arguments with something from Scripture, Church teaching, or the early fathers of the Church. If you can’t find anything in those, I would ask you to give serious thought and consideration to examining your beliefs with the mind of the Church and conforming in the areas where those views are not in line with the Church.

 

[Pitcharan]

In that case they should decriminalize polygamy. It is very hard to enforce after all.

It is up them who have the mandate to legislate. If you have suggestions, talk to your senator.

However abortion was deemed illegal back in the past and in some countries is still illegal. So there is precedence. This evil of abortion had been legislated before in the case of the U.S. and in some countries today.

Laws of yesteryears may not hold good now. We change with times. I am not aware of any democracy where abortion within a certain period is a criminal offence today.

 

[DeSanto]

I didn’t vote. Couldn’t consciously vote for either candidate. My state was going red anyway, my vote was inconsequential. What a mess this whole thing had become. Glad it’s over! I encourage prayer. Much prayer.

 

[Pitcharan]

What a good thing to happen. I am sure many are praying to praise and thank God for the results.