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

[Lapey]

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

Here we are again, you misusing these documents to support your opinions.

 

[BroomWagon]

The Bishops have made it clear how we should vote? Interesting. This is precisely what 501c3 organizations are *not *allowed to do. From the IRS website in regards to 501 c3 status: “On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.” According to this document, old.usccb.org/ogc/groupruling.pdf, the USCCB is a 501 c3.

It’s because I love the Church as much as anyone else here that I’m concerned that the Bishops have given the impression that they’ve been telling the flock how to vote. They might want to address this at their annual meeting.

Excuse me, we have freedom of speech in this country, if you were up on the news, you would know that the 501c3 status has actively been challenged, you would know that pastors have sent in their sermons to the government to tempt the government to act against their so-called freedom of speech.

You must have missed, among other threads, this one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=718521

A record number of pastors this past Sunday defied IRS rules and regulations and preached politics from their pulpits as a way to protest the restrictive guidelines placed on churches.

A total of 1,586 pastors participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This is the fifth annual event sponsored by Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal group.

The registered pastors committed to preach sermons that present biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates. In so doing, they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom to engage in religious expression from the pulpit despite an Internal Revenue Service rule known as the Johnson Amendment that activist groups often use to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status.

lifenews.com/2012/10/08/almost-1600-pastors-defy-irs-preach-politics-from-pulpit/

Preaching about scriptural principles and applying them to the positions of candidates for public office is not “political” speech, it’s “core religious expression from a spiritual leader to his congregants.”

That’s according to Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which reported today that nearly 1,600 pastors of churches across the nation participated in its Pulpit Initiative this past weekend.

wnd.com/2012/10/1600-christians-to-irs-stay-out-of-pulpit/

And the IRS has basically stood down.

I only hope people with this concern will show the same concern for issues that the Holy See wants us to be serious about, not about how we might offend potentially Unconstitutional Law.

 

[Lapey]

I assure you, I did not mean it to be cynical. I do not believe anyone deliberately voted to ‘betray God’.

Well, that would be mortal sin if they did. Full knowledge, free will, and grave matter; if all are present in the voting booth one can be in a state of mortal sin with their vote.

 

[Lapey]

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

We cannot simply say, “We agree on abortion. Now let’s move on.” This is what it means in the documents, IEs are always to be opposed, if both candidates agree on the IEs then the next issues can be discussed. These two candidates did not agree on abortion; or many other IEs for that matter.

 

[Lochias]

Democratically elected Lawmakers are as guilty or as blameless as Moses the Lawgiver, with respect to the Laws they make.

Those who commit sins are alone answerable to God and not those who decriminalized it, just as Moses was in no way accountable for indiscriminate divorce.

Making abortion widely available is a sin, so Obama is just as guilty. He’s leading people into murder, and according to Scripture it would have gone better for him if he’d put a millstone around his neck and cast himself into the sea.

Jesus said it, not me.

 

[BackToTheRock]

Excuse me, we have freedom of speech in this country, if you were up on the news, you would know that the 501c3 status has actively been challenged, you would know that pastors have sent in their sermons to the government to tempt the government to act against their so-called freedom of speech.

You are correct in your assertion that we have freedom of speech in this country. You are incorrect in your assumption that I’m not aware of the pastors who used their pulpits to speak against the perameters of 501 c3 regulations while continuing to accept the benefits of its tax exemptions. I would feel better about them if they took the positon that they felt so strongly about expressing their political convictions that they would terminate their tax exempt status.

Also, the fact that there’s been no fallout from this act doesn’t necessarily mean anything. A response could come later or this one-time act might be seen as being of such insignificance that it’s simply ignored.

 

[JimG]

Making abortion widely available is a sin, so Obama is just as guilty. He’s leading people into murder, and according to Scripture it would have gone better for him if he’d put a millstone around his neck and cast himself into the sea.

Jesus said it, not me.

Obama, of course, has a long record in favoring of “abortion rights” from his earliest days in politics, even going so far as to oppose the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which even NARAL did not oppose. So, to compare him to Moses or Mother Teresa is indeed not just a stretch but a contradiction. (Mother Teresa used the occasion of her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to speak out against abortion, citing it as the primary destroyer of peace.)

 

[Erich]

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Besides, the country voted for Democrats. Let em have Democrats. We’ll see how they like em after about 2 years.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003170227/llll-87580448498_xlarge.png

 

[Lapey]

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

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

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

AMEN!

 

[Lapey]

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

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

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

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

Again, you misuse these quotes. They do not mandate a catholic to follow his/her conscience against Church teaching, it protects a persons duty to follow their conscience against outside forces. We are, as Catholics, required to learn, then discern and conform to the Church.

 

[Pitcharan]

He’s leading people into murder,

That’s merely your statement.

… and according to Scripture it would have gone better for him if he’d put a millstone around his neck and cast himself into the sea.

Jesus said it, not me.

Jesus alone may judge, NOT you. He will do it at The Last Judgment when we will all know the truth.

 

[BroomWagon]

You are correct in your assertion that we have freedom of speech in this country. You are incorrect in your assumption that I’m not aware of the pastors who used their pulpits to speak against the perameters of 501 c3 regulations while continuing to accept the benefits of its tax exemptions. I would feel better about them if they took the positon that they felt so strongly about expressing their political convictions that they would terminate their tax exempt status.

Also, the fact that there’s been no fallout from this act doesn’t necessarily mean anything. A response could come later or this one-time act might be seen as being of such insignificance that it’s simply ignored.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=726479&page=2

encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1086

In Alabama the Catholic Church’s involvement with the civil rights movement was decidedly mixed. **Most of Alabama’s white Catholics shared white southerners’ racism and initially opposed the goals of the movement. ***They preferred order and stability instead of activism for integration and racial justice. *Catholic teaching clearly opposed racial discrimination, however, and after the mid-1960s there was little official sympathy for segregation. For most of the civil rights movement, the Catholic Church in Alabama remained on the margins of the debates over integration and focused on internal Church affairs. It took the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march for voting rights to draw the Church from the margins into the mainstream of the movement.

This is a similar situation. We have had these issues in the history of this country, slavery, civil rights, and so on. We all have our conscience and our responsibility to the church.

We know who sided with the wrong of slavery in the past and were also on the side of the government for much of the time.

I find siding with Justice more important than siding with a government with a President that voted for infanticide and funds the largest abortion provider in the USA, planned parenthood and a government that has stopped payments to US military if planned parenthood was not a part of the budget, a government that has denied poor women healthcare through planned parenthood unless abortion is also available.

It depends on what authority one is answering too, I find answering to Jesus Christ more important and some in America seem to be offering respectfully other excuse, “don’t want to impose my views on others”, 501 c3 status and so on.

 

[Lapey]

Quite simple, his example were between Bush and Obama. Romney on the other hand once stated, ‘I am more pro choice than Ted Kennedy.’ He changed views, with political aspirations. It’s one thing to tell you support an evil truthfully, it’s no better to lie and say you don’t support it for political gain.

I believe I even addressed that with my previous post responding to Ridge’s post, along with some questionable allowances by Bush. There’s a full commitment, and then there’s placating a cause to keep it for future use.

You cannot get past this comment of his. Many people change their views on many issues. You cannot prove he is lying, but you accuse him of this sin constantly. Wasn’t it you who quoted this, “…ignore the plank in your own eye while calling out the speck in you brother’s eye…”?

This is precisely why you appear as though you are campaigning for Obama. I know you are not, but the appearance in all of your posts is screaming, “I hate Romney!”

 

[BroomWagon]

In Alabama the Catholic Church’s involvement with the civil rights movement was decidedly mixed. Most of Alabama’s white Catholics shared white southerners’ racism and initially opposed the goals of the movement. They preferred order and stability instead of activism for integration and racial justice. Catholic teaching clearly opposed racial discrimination, however, and after the mid-1960s there was little official sympathy for segregation. For most of the civil rights movement, the Catholic Church in Alabama remained on the margins of the debates over integration and focused on internal Church affairs. It took the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march for voting rights to draw the Church from the margins into the mainstream of the movement.

encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1086

An analogy is clear. If one finds appeasing the government as being more important, that is up to their conscience. But apparently the Church may have felt compelled to steer their congregants into a more just position regarding this issue.

 

[JimG]

You cannot get past this comment of his. Many people change their views on many issues. You cannot prove he is lying, but you accuse him of this sin constantly. Wasn’t it you who quoted this, “…ignore the plank in your own eye while calling out the speck in you brother’s eye…”?

This is precisely why you appear as though you are campaigning for Obama. I know you are not, but the appearance in all of your posts is screaming, “I hate Romney!”

Also, let’s not forget that Ted Kennedy changed is views because of his political aspirations! And a very sweeping change it was. Ted Kennedy was once pro-life. He decided that being pro-choice was necessary to his political ambitions.

 

[Lapey]

Thanks. I prefer to be a hard working idiot. I think a fair tax would be on expenditures, and not on incomes. Tax people on what they spend and be done with it. That way any time any of us buys a private jet, we pay our fair share accordingly.

This would burden the poor more so than the rich.

I placed a chart of my thoughts on taxation earlier, and no one commented on it.

I think it is simple, all people on the same tax rate, 20% (had to pick a number) All taxpayers get the same general deduction, $36K (again had to pick a number). but first eliminate all deductions and subsidies…ALL!

I’ll try to find my post.

Found it…

At the level of taxation at what it is in this country, and the level of over spending for the last 30 or so years, how is raising taxes moderate? That is liberal, always has been and always will be. A compromise wound be to cut one penny on every dollar spent in this country, every dollar, not just this or that but all! Then get rid of ALL subsidies and deductions and cooperate taxes and capital gains taxes, and lower tax rates. Give one simple deduction for every tax payer, say $36K, and then tax everyone at the lower rate. A millionaire will naturally pay a progressively higher rate and amount than someone who makes $50K.

Family making $1,000,000,000 – 36K in income @ 20% would pay $199,992,800 or an effective tax rate of 19.99%

Mitt Romney’s family $20,000,000 – minus 36K in income @ 20% would pay $3,992,800 or an effective tax rate of 19.96%

Family making $1,000,000 in income – Minus 36K@ 20% would pay $192,000 or an effective rate of 19.28%

Family makes $125,000 in income – minus 36K @ 20% would pay $17,800 or an effective rate of 14.24%

Family making $100,000 in total income – minus 36K @ 20% would pay $12800 or an effective rate of 12.8%.

Family making $36,000 in total income – 36K @ 20% would pay $0.00 or an effective rate of 0%

Rate payer base will explode with new tax payers because of new job production and income to the government will go up. Final result would be increased tax revenue, democrat want, and lower tax rates, republican want. Now that is real compromise!

This probably doesn’t fit here, but I went off on a tangent sitting at my desk and this is what I came up with. Adjust the rate a little if you like, or tweak the amount of the universal deduction if you must, but the point is there is compromise out there. It’s just not always what I or you may see as compromise.

 

[BackToTheRock]

Well . . . . I think this thread has run out of steam.

It’s interesting to note that the current issue of Our Sunday Visitor has an article on page 8 pointing out that discussion of the election results aren’t on the agenda for the fall meeting of the Bishops. Maybe we should follow their lead and move on to other items.

 

[BroomWagon]

Also, let’s not forget that Ted Kennedy changed is views because of his political aspirations! And a very sweeping change it was. Ted Kennedy was once pro-life. He decided that being pro-choice was necessary to his political ambitions.

Jesse Jackson too.

 

[BroomWagon]

Romney was let down.

Mitt Romney’s top campaign aides conducted a conference call with conservative journalists this afternoon, during which they assessed the damage from Tuesday’s electoral loss. The participants included campaign manager Matt Rhoades, political director Rich Beeson, polling director Neil Newhouse and digital director Zac Moffatt. A few notes from the call:

Matt Rhoades, on the overall race: “No campaign is perfect, and we certainly made our share of mistakes.” On Paul Ryan: “He has come away from this race with a very bright future before him.”

townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/11/09/theres_a_sense_that_we_let_mitt_romney_down

With Paul Ryan on the ticket, a pledge to defund Planned Parenthood, the Democrat pet and largest abortion provider in the USA, being bold and sticking his neck out for the pro-life cause, Romney was let down.

Those coming up with some explanation about what Romney did 6 years ago in Massachusetts, etc., it seems some just search for excuses.

“One Issue Voters” some insult others with, but really, this was a great time to make strides against the abortion industry and the federal government being a part of it. This is the reality of the situation, hard to find a more pro-life platform than what the Republicans had for a National Party, but the do nothings and complainers should be happy that Big Abortion Business won and the Federal Government’s involvement of it, they are partners in its bloodshed as well.

 

[Lapey]

We were discussing Fr. Serpa’s response to the question, 'Is it wrong for a Catholic to vote for Obama?’

You state that you believe it to be a ‘typo.’

Fr. Serpa responded to another post entitled, ’ Are half the Catholic voters bound for hell?’

His response indicated it was a similar question, and gave the same answer that we are discussing.

You point out to me that the statement makes no grammatical sense, and highlighted parts in red (as shown below).

We lose grammatical sense if we leave out the word ‘whether’. ‘Whether’ indicates there are two, or more, qualifiers. The first qualifier is the first part highlighted in red, ‘their consciences are well informed,’ The second qualifier is the second part you highlighted in red, ‘through not fault of their own they are not.’ Whether their consciences are well informed OR through not fault of their own they are not, they do not sin by acting on them.

1. We have an obligation to inform our consciences regarding moral choices we make in life.
2. If we deliberately disobey the moral teaching of the Church, we can sin mortally.
3. 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.

I hope you can see why I can’t see the obvious typo through my explanation above.

“…through not fault of their own they are not,…” What does that mean? Should it be through no fault of their own? Or maybe, though not fault of their own, in other words, fault of others?

Another aspect which came to me while sitting in the duck blind, , in my opinion a properly formed conscience will not choose to support Obama because of the intrinsic evils which he supports, so to vote for him means the conscience formation was not good and no there is no sin. Better said, there is no culpability of the sin.