If it is properly formed in accordance with the teachings of the Church of course they are. But that is not what we are saying-we’re seeing people saying they can ignore the Church’s teachings as long as your conscience tells them it’s okay. Others twist Church teaching to try and contend that they do not e really say what they clearly say-both techniques are used when one wants to put their politics ahead of their faith.
It is really not that hard to tell whether one’s conscience is properly formed formed or not. If they reach a concusion that is contrary to Church teaching then their conscience was not properly formed
Agreed.
You’re saying that voting for Obama is sinful, right? Or at least morally unacceptable.
OK, you’re right, some are saying that. But surely you cannot believe that there is not a single person who has considered faithfully Church teachings and had their conscience tell them to vote Obama.
That’s like saying show me one teaching that says it’s wrong to kill a guy named Joe;. The Church made it clear you cannot vote for somebody who supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortions on demand. The fact they didn’t give his name does not reduce the culpability of Catholics who were ignored the Church’s clear teachings and voted for him
There may well be a live Catholic saint-in-waiting who reads Catholic teaching night and day and wants to run for public office. And that person may get .012% of the national vote, if that. And other faithful Catholic voters know that. So rather than choose the saint with no realistic chance of advancing any Catholic moral cause (because the saint is not electible), voters – including many Catholic priests – are going to choose between a couple of non-saints who are electible, one of whom is more likely to advance a broader collection of Catholic moral values than another, in the formed consciences of those voters.
No matter how you try to rationalize it if you voted fo Obama you ignored the teachings of the church. if your conscience told you that was OK then your conscience was wrong.
Bob, did you actually even read this article?
Yes i did-a US Bishop can not officially comment on an election.he was preety clear, however.-as is all the teachings on the Church in this area.
And no matter how you “rationalize it,” you, to my knowledge, have not been appointed overseer of other people’s consciences. I’m not willing to say that the consciences of all those Catholic priests were “wrong,” because I have no private insight into that, nor do you. Again, which was addressed in an earlier thread, moral theology is not a collection of rules or military orders. It’s a system of decision-making, based on Catholic moral principles, which in turn is based on Catholic philosophy.
The only people who make the above claim about the Church teaching are those looking for an excuse to ignore them.
So why do you suppose the wording was “does not represent” instead of “does not necessarily represent”?
That’s over the line, Bob.
It is quite easy. If actions do not match the teachings of the Church, the conscience is improperly formed. If it does not bother someone to vote for a candidate with absolutely no respect for life, I would say there are issues.
Obama is absolutely anti-life. He is opposed to the Church on ALL FIVE of the non-negotiable issues. Stop rationalizing the support of evil.Yeah, but there are areas of interpretation as to what are the teachings of the Church and their application.
Noteworthy in the article referenced by Bob:
"I think they’re pretty solidly grounded in Catholic teaching and the heart of the Church, but it’s your task as Catholics and citizens to listen, evaluate and then act as you judge best."
My emphasis. Nowhere in the article does he say voting for Obama is a sin.
I’m doing nothing of the sort. Show me where I’m doing so or clam up, please.