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

[Kontrak]

Because Obama has NO role whatsoever in the murder of unborn babies. He is as respectable and lovable as Blessed Mother Teresa.

That’s merely your statement.

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

You judged him yourself by saying, “he is as respectable and lovable as Blessed Mother Teresa”

We are not to judge who is in hell or who is going to hell. That is different from ‘judging rightly’ the persons actions as sinful and it is clear that he does not defend the unborn or like his party he will not acknowledge that they are even alive. You are advocating silence in the midst of great evil. How can we defend the poorest of the poor? Those who have no rights, no human dignity, and no voice when we are too busy justifying our actions and the actions of those we put into power?

“What you do unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

So far no one has shown an authoritative statement otherwise, so it stands that when two interpretations are available without an authoritative statement, either side can be misinterpreting. I prefer to say misinterpreting as misusing implies intentional, and that implies seeing something in another person’s heart.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Again, so far that is opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

So the election hasn’t happened yet and we must wait and see the outcome to proceed? We know where we are and we can work towards progress, or we can deny reality and see history repeat itself in 4 years.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Again, you state your opinion, without an authoritative statement. Where in the teaching does it state any person can determine another person’s conscience is in error and must be prevented.

 

[Pitcharan]

You judged him yourself by saying he’s as “respectable and lovable as Blessed Mother Teresa”

Accusing someone of murder when there is no such case pending in any court is a false judgment and accusation. Describing someone as “respectable and lovable as Blessed Mother Teresa” after he has won the hearts of millions and also the coveted Nobel Prize is a mere statement of fact.

No Catholic can say someone is going to hell. That doesn’t mean we can’t judge the persons actions as wrong and it is clear that he does not defend the unborn or like his party he will not acknowledge that they are even alive.

The defence of the unborn is the responsibility of those who conceive them.

You are advocating silence in the midst of great evil. How can we defend the poorest of the poor?

That is your own absolutely FALSE allegation. It is you who are advocating false accusation of the Law and Law makers for the sins of others.

Those who have no rights, no human dignity, and no voice when we are too busy justifying our actions and the actions of those we put into power?

No one is stopping you from dissuading mothers from aborting babies or from any positive campaign against abortion. Why blame the Law for abortions and how do you say that abortions happen because of the Law?

 

[Lapey]

So the election hasn’t happened yet and we must wait and see the outcome to proceed? We know where we are and we can work towards progress, or we can deny reality and see history repeat itself in 4 years.

What???

I agree with the other poster…this thread is about done. We are not making any headway.

 

[Lapey]

Again, you state your opinion, without an authoritative statement. Where in the teaching does it state any person can determine another person’s conscience is in error and must be prevented.

We would correct actions. The conscience drives actions. Use of contraceptives is an error in judgment and conscience, a person who has an abortion is in error by her actions, and therefore her conscience is in error; if not she has condemned herself. Someone who misses Mass without proper reasons, is in error of conscience, should a priest or deacon correct the laity on that? How about divorce and re-marriage, cohabitation, stealing, driving while intoxicated, you name it. Many issues like these which involve moral living come to the attention of pastors and those who are responsible for leading the faithful, like me as a deacon. Are we to keep quiet because they followed their conscience?

I could go on, but I think many get the picture, not sure if you will but most will.

This is quite simple; one just has to be ready to accept truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“…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.

It is not a typo.

It can be either. ‘…through not fault of their own they are not (well informed)’ That’s the two differences. Whether well informed or through not fault of the own they are not.’ Either way, they do not sin by acting on them.

You can parse the sentence by stating the sentence without the qualifiers

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

The qualifiers remove argument by stating, ‘whether their consciences are well informed through not fault of their own they are not…’ Either of those two conditions do not sin by acting on their consciences, if they sincerely follow their consciences.

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.

It’s been explained, to a point it’s now accused of being a ‘typo’. All those men of the Church who are saying the same thing are not ‘typos’.

Your OPINION does not trump teaching. What you are doing is declaring other person’s consciences as wrong and not to be acted on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We would correct actions. The conscience drives actions. Use of contraceptives is an error in judgment and conscience, a person who has an abortion is in error by her actions, and therefore her conscience is in error; if not she has condemned herself. Someone who misses Mass without proper reasons, is in error of conscience, should a priest or deacon correct the laity on that? How about divorce and re-marriage, cohabitation, stealing, driving while intoxicated, you name it. Many issues like these which involve moral living come to the attention of pastors and those who are responsible for leading the faithful, like me as a deacon. Are we to keep quiet because they followed their conscience?

I could go on, but I think many get the picture, not sure if you will but most will.

This is quite simple; one just has to be ready to accept truth.

Then give me the whole truth and not half of a debate declared as truth. That’s the situation Catholics find themselves in. The clergy does not agree with each other.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Does this not prove the point that one can be suspect of politicians who change views?