Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Al_Moritz]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

I was suspicious about the report by the National Catholic Register (NCR), since it did not directly quote the entire sentence whose meaning has been the central point of discussion on this thread. I do not think that the NCR intentionally would misrepresent views, but precise words do matter.

I was therefore not satisfied with the statement by the NCR:

He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”

Thus I decided to find out firsthand what Archbishop Vigano, the Papal Nucio, actually had said. I found the video of his speech,

youtube.com/watch?v=-LAHbc3NAAU

and around 1 hour and 2 min he makes his statement:

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation, when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evil among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church. Through this strategy the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted.

There is a crucial difference with the report of the NCR. From the construction of the sentence it is obvious that the “it” in “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” refers to “platform”. So Vigano does not lament the fact that Catholics support the Democratic Party, as the NCR report suggested, but he lamented that some Catholics support the (entire) platform of the Democratic Party with its intrinsic evils, i.e. that some support abortion etc. (by the way, with “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” the Papal Nuncio presumably referred to the Catholic public officials who do so, e.g. Biden, Sebelius, Pelosi etc.).

Of course, as a Catholic you cannot support abortion – in that the Archbishop only stated the obvious! Yet many Catholics vote Democratic without supporting abortion, and no Catholic here who voted Obama supports abortion. You can support a party for other reasons than supporting intrinsic evil in their platform, just like you can support a pro-choice candidate for other reasons than supporting his pro-choice position.

The latter is exactly what the Pope said when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“[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.]”

That is also exactly what the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship says:

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

(Again, note that "“other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc.)

Precise words matter. And the precise words that the Papal Nuncio spoke are in no contradiction whatsoever with the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) and the USCCB guide Faithful Citizenship. The words that the NCR put into the Papal Nuncio’s mouth might have been interpreted by some (and it has been done here) to contradict these documents or to force a more concrete interpretation towards not being able to vote Democratic at all, yet the actual words that the Papal Nuncio spoke do not support that idea.

 

[Pitcharan]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

I was suspicious about the report by the National Catholic Register (NCR), since it did not directly quote the entire sentence whose meaning has been the central point of discussion on this thread. I do not think that the NCR intentionally would misrepresent views, but precise words do matter.

I was therefore not satisfied with the statement by the NCR:

He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”

Thus I decided to find out firsthand what Archbishop Vigano, the Papal Nucio, actually had said. I found the video of his speech,

youtube.com/watch?v=-LAHbc3NAAU

and around 1 hour and 2 min he makes his statement:

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation, when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evil among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church. Through this strategy the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted.

There is a crucial difference with the report of the NCR. From the construction of the sentence it is obvious that the “it” in “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” refers to “platform”. So Vigano does not lament the fact that Catholics support the Democratic Party, as the NCR report suggested, but he lamented that some Catholics support the (entire) platform of the Democratic Party with its intrinsic evils, i.e. that some support abortion etc. (by the way, with “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” the Papal Nuncio presumably referred to the Catholic public officials who do so, e.g. Biden, Sebelius, Pelosi etc.).

Of course, as a Catholic you cannot support abortion – in that the Archbishop only stated the obvious! Yet many Catholics vote Democratic without supporting abortion, and no Catholic here who voted Obama supports abortion. You can support a party for other reasons than supporting intrinsic evil in their platform, just like you can support a pro-choice candidate for other reasons than supporting his pro-choice position.

The latter is exactly what the Pope said when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"[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.]"

That is also exactly what the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship says:

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

(Again, note that "“other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc.)

Precise words matter. And the precise words that the Papal Nuncio spoke are in no contradiction whatsoever with the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) and the USCCB guide Faithful Citizenship. The words that the NCR put into the Papal Nuncio’s mouth might have been interpreted by some (and it has been done here) to contradict these documents or to force a more concrete interpretation towards not being able to vote Democratic at all, yet the actual words that the Papal Nuncio spoke do not support that idea.

Thanks a ton for that post; great job!

I am sure many Catholics out here will feel relieved that indeed they are not guilty in any way.

All the needless confusion could have been avoided if only verbatim quoting was followed. Now there is room for speculation if it was intentional.

 

[wynnejj]

However, I think we must remember that consecration is not dependent on the worthiness of th priests who confect it. If that were the case, the Church never would have had the Real Presence. The Roman Catholic priesthood is Christ’s priesthood…He will not abandon it.

Absolutely. I too believe very firmly in the Real Presence. However, one still has to get over the hurdle that says if the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is “good medicine”, then how come it isn’t working? When you know 20K to 25K babies are aborted weekly, and the Sunday Mass prayer petitions neglect prayers for the unborn, yet pray for other social justice causes invoking the “least of our brethren” tag, one has to wonder how Catholic circles think and apply their faith. It is as if the unborn need not apply for social justice within the confines of the temple. The don’t have a prayer. Even when the parish lawn has white crosses, each representing 1M “least of our brethren” that are aborted, there is still a dearth of prayer petitions and hardly an eyebrow is raised. I’m appalled to this day by the lack in involvement in Pro-Life efforts in my church. I’m appalled to this day at the lack of turnout at “40 Days for Life” prayer vigils. The only answer that I could come up with is that its efficacy is proportional to a person’s trueness to his understanding of faith.

It’s as if the Real Presence of the Least of Our Brethren is HIDDEN from the eyes of man. Think about that the next time you participate in Eucharistic Adoration. Think about how we used to bow our heads and say Jesus was Born and became Man, rather than the corrected Jesus was Incarnate and became Man. Would Jesus, our Unborn King, have a prayer in our society.

 

[Mickey]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation, when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evil among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church. Through this strategy the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted.

You are trying to be a spin doctor.

Now it is even clearer to the faithful…in spite of your twisted interpretation.

The democratic paltform is the platform of abortion on demand…infanticide…euthanasia…gay “marriage”…Planned Parenthood…etc. It is an intrinsically evil platform. And some Catholics are supporting it.

THAT is what the Archbishop is saying.

He is telling us that it is divisive and an intentional dividing of the Church. Thank you very much for doing the work to find the exact quote. I am saving it for my files.

All Christians who supported the democratic platform by voting for BO need to see this!

 

[wynnejj]

I am sure many Catholics out here will feel relieved that indeed they are not guilty in any way.

W.C.Fields was once caught reading a Bible in bed.
His friend asks incredulously “What are you doing with a Bible?”
W.C.Fields responds “Looking for loopholes.”

 

[Lapey]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

I was suspicious about the report by the National Catholic Register (NCR), since it did not directly quote the entire sentence whose meaning has been the central point of discussion on this thread. I do not think that the NCR intentionally would misrepresent views, but precise words do matter.

I was therefore not satisfied with the statement by the NCR:

He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”

Thus I decided to find out firsthand what Archbishop Vigano, the Papal Nucio, actually had said. I found the video of his speech,

youtube.com/watch?v=-LAHbc3NAAU

and around 1 hour and 2 min he makes his statement:

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation, when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evil among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church. Through this strategy the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted.

There is a crucial difference with the report of the NCR. From the construction of the sentence it is obvious that the “it” in “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” refers to “platform”. So Vigano does not lament the fact that Catholics support the Democratic Party, as the NCR report suggested, but he lamented that some Catholics support the (entire) platform of the Democratic Party with its intrinsic evils, i.e. that some support abortion etc. (by the way, with “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” the Papal Nuncio presumably referred to the Catholic public officials who do so, e.g. Biden, Sebelius, Pelosi etc.).

Of course, as a Catholic you cannot support abortion – in that the Archbishop only stated the obvious! Yet many Catholics vote Democratic without supporting abortion, and no Catholic here who voted Obama supports abortion. You can support a party for other reasons than supporting intrinsic evil in their platform, just like you can support a pro-choice candidate for other reasons than supporting his pro-choice position.

The latter is exactly what the Pope said when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"[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.]"

That is also exactly what the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship says:

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

(Again, note that "“other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc.)

Precise words matter. And the precise words that the Papal Nuncio spoke are in no contradiction whatsoever with the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) and the USCCB guide Faithful Citizenship. The words that the NCR put into the Papal Nuncio’s mouth might have been interpreted by some (and it has been done here) to contradict these documents or to force a more concrete interpretation towards not being able to vote Democratic at all, yet the actual words that the Papal Nuncio spoke do not support that idea.

That’s some serious twisting right there, and all for party loyalty. And we are the partsans.

 

[Lapey]

Thanks a ton for that post; great job!

I am sure many Catholics out here will feel relieved that indeed they are not guilty in any way.

All the needless confusion could have been avoided if only verbatim quoting was followed. Now there is room for speculation if it was intentional.

There is only confusion on tbe side which misinterpretates this message. Sad how much work will be done by so many so they can stay in the party of death.

 

[JMJSHJ]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

I was suspicious about the report by the National Catholic Register (NCR), since it did not directly quote the entire sentence whose meaning has been the central point of discussion on this thread. I do not think that the NCR intentionally would misrepresent views, but precise words do matter.

I was therefore not satisfied with the statement by the NCR:

He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”

Thus I decided to find out firsthand what Archbishop Vigano, the Papal Nucio, actually had said. I found the video of his speech,

youtube.com/watch?v=-LAHbc3NAAU

and around 1 hour and 2 min he makes his statement:

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation, when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evil among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church. Through this strategy the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted.

There is a crucial difference with the report of the NCR. From the construction of the sentence it is obvious that the “it” in “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” refers to “platform”. So Vigano does not lament the fact that Catholics support the Democratic Party, as the NCR report suggested, but he lamented that some Catholics support the (entire) platform of the Democratic Party with its intrinsic evils, i.e. that some support abortion etc. (by the way, with “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” the Papal Nuncio presumably referred to the Catholic public officials who do so, e.g. Biden, Sebelius, Pelosi etc.).

Of course, as a Catholic you cannot support abortion – in that the Archbishop only stated the obvious! Yet many Catholics vote Democratic without supporting abortion, and no Catholic here who voted Obama supports abortion. You can support a party for other reasons than supporting intrinsic evil in their platform, just like you can support a pro-choice candidate for other reasons than supporting his pro-choice position.

The latter is exactly what the Pope said when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"[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.]"

That is also exactly what the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship says:

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

(Again, note that "“other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc.)

Precise words matter. And the precise words that the Papal Nuncio spoke are in no contradiction whatsoever with the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) and the USCCB guide Faithful Citizenship. The words that the NCR put into the Papal Nuncio’s mouth might have been interpreted by some (and it has been done here) to contradict these documents or to force a more concrete interpretation towards not being able to vote Democratic at all, yet the actual words that the Papal Nuncio spoke do not support that idea.

Platforms are what define a political party. To try to say otherwise is to prove what Cardinal Burke or Chaput said about Catholic democrats winning a gold medal for mental gymnastics.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I find some of the following comments on a news article interesting. They were made by lay people (not necessarily Catholics) regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks recently that the Church of England is “losing credibility” (because it’s not more in sync with secular trends). It’s tangential to this discussion, but nevertheless is relevant because it’s parallel.

***~it ceases to amaze me that people expect a religion to change to suit them. It’s not a club, or a gym, but a religion based on traditions and beliefs. Changes should always be “behind the times” rather than accept the whimsical changes of the moment. ***

***~Any Church that doesn’t believe it’s doctrines are true, regardless of contemporary fashion, doesn’t deserve to exist.

~Funny, a church leader saying the church needs to be more bound by earthly concerns.

~A majority (56%) currently say religion is losing influence. Millions of church members do not take part in religious services or other church activities. Though their names may remain on church membership roles, they have virtually, left the churches.

~I simply don’t like that he thinks societies’ ideals have any say in the Church… on either side that tends to be a losing argument. In the world, not of it Gents. ***

At least these people get it. Good for them. Again, it appeared not in any Catholic publication.

 

[Pitcharan]

W.C.Fields was once caught reading a Bible in bed.
His friend asks incredulously “What are you doing with a Bible?”
W.C.Fields responds “Looking for loopholes.”

No question of looking for loopholes.

To abort is evil; but when it becomes rampant, the government is compelled to let people do as they wish and it is the ones who abort that are answerable to God and NOT the government that did not criminalize the evil.

Moses was in no way guilty for permitting divorce but the ones who divorced are guilty.

 

[Lapey]

Precise words matter. And the precise words that the Papal Nuncio spoke are in no contradiction whatsoever with the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) and the USCCB guide Faithful Citizenship. The words that the NCR put into the Papal Nuncio’s mouth might have been interpreted by some (and it has been done here) to contradict these documents or to force a more concrete interpretation towards not being able to vote Democratic at all, yet the actual words that the Papal Nuncio spoke do not support that idea.

I agree with you, precise words matter. Let’s see how you like these precise words.

The work you did in thie post is agaoinst the Church and the leaders of teh Church. From the papal nuncio to teh Faithful Citizenship document to Cardinal Ratzinger’s writting of '04. You pick and choose words and phrases for “precise” reasons, partisan reasons.

This is exactly what the CCC means in these two;

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59** In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. **

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, **enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. **

You have to make the change and allow God to change your heart, no one else can do it for you.

 

[wynnejj]

***~it ceases to amaze me that people expect a religion to change to suit them. It’s not a club, or a gym, but a religion based on traditions and beliefs. Changes should always be “behind the times” rather than accept the whimsical changes of the moment. ***

~Any Church that doesn’t believe it’s doctrines are true, regardless of contemporary fashion, doesn’t deserve to exist.

I really like these two.

 

[ProVobis]

they cannot put up a candidate that will say once and for all, abortion is wrong always and I will make all abortion illegal! Thats what I want to hear.

There are ways of amending the U.S. Constitution to do all this without non-binding party platforms and another 40 years of squandering money on Democrats and Republicans on the national level. Of course you won’t hear it from Rush Limbaugh, Carl Rove, or Chris Matthews.

 

[estesbob]

What an interesting paradyme. 50% of catholic voters reject Church teaching. Some of those who didnt reject Church teaching point this out and they are blamed of those who did of causing division.

 

[ProVobis]

What an interesting paradyme. 50% of catholic voters reject Church teaching. Some of those who didnt reject Church teaching point this out and they are blamed of those who did of causing division.

I would put as much blame, if not more so, on those who voted for Romney over Ron Paul in the primaries.

 

[gnjsdad]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

I was suspicious about the report by the National Catholic Register (NCR), since it did not directly quote the entire sentence whose meaning has been the central point of discussion on this thread. I do not think that the NCR intentionally would misrepresent views, but precise words do matter.

I was therefore not satisfied with the statement by the NCR:

He lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”

Thus I decided to find out firsthand what Archbishop Vigano, the Papal Nucio, actually had said. I found the video of his speech,

youtube.com/watch?v=-LAHbc3NAAU

and around 1 hour and 2 min he makes his statement:

We are still a far cry from fully embracing the Holy Father’s encouraging exhortation, when we witness in an unprecedented way a platform being assumed by a major political party, having intrinsic evil among its basic principles, and Catholic faithful publicly supporting it. There is a divisive strategy at work here, an intentional dividing of the Church. Through this strategy the body of the Church is weakened, and thus the Church can be more easily persecuted.

There is a crucial difference with the report of the NCR. From the construction of the sentence it is obvious that the “it” in “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” refers to “platform”. So Vigano does not lament the fact that Catholics support the Democratic Party, as the NCR report suggested, but he lamented that some Catholics support the (entire) platform of the Democratic Party with its intrinsic evils, i.e. that some support abortion etc. (by the way, with “Catholic faithful publicly supporting it” the Papal Nuncio presumably referred to the Catholic public officials who do so, e.g. Biden, Sebelius, Pelosi etc.).

Of course, as a Catholic you cannot support abortion – in that the Archbishop only stated the obvious! Yet many Catholics vote Democratic without supporting abortion, and no Catholic here who voted Obama supports abortion. You can support a party for other reasons than supporting intrinsic evil in their platform, just like you can support a pro-choice candidate for other reasons than supporting his pro-choice position.

The latter is exactly what the Pope said when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"[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.]"

That is also exactly what the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship says:

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

(Again, note that "“other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc.)

Precise words matter. And the precise words that the Papal Nuncio spoke are in no contradiction whatsoever with the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) and the USCCB guide Faithful Citizenship. The words that the NCR put into the Papal Nuncio’s mouth might have been interpreted by some (and it has been done here) to contradict these documents or to force a more concrete interpretation towards not being able to vote Democratic at all, yet the actual words that the Papal Nuncio spoke do not support that idea.

Thanks for this informative post, and the youtube link to the Nuncio’s speech, which I listened to.

It is as you have described it. The Papal Nuncio was critical of the Democatic party platform and those Catholics who have given public support to the intrinsic evils contained in it (politicians like Biden, Pelosi, etc). He said nothing critical that I heard of anyone who may have voted Democratic.

I also found it revealing that he pointed to the inadequacy of the 1st Amendment as a guarantor of religious freedom. His presentation was of the Catholic understanding of religious liberty, not the American. IMO, they are not the same.

 

[Lapey]

There are ways of amending the U.S. Constitution to do all this without non-binding party platforms and another 40 years of squandering money on Democrats and Republicans on the national level. Of course you won’t hear it from Rush Limbaugh, Carl Rove, or Chris Matthews.

If I’m not mistaken we have asked you repeatedly how this magical solution would work and I’ve yet to hear it. Please elaborate and if I’ve missed it, I apologise.

 

[Lapey]

I would put as much blame, if not more so, on those who voted for Romney over Ron Paul in the primaries.

So the 50% who voted for Obama in the general election have no guilt??? I am really more dumb and ignorant than I ever could have imagined. I am sure glad I came here this morning to see just how dumb I am…

 

[Lapey]

Thanks for this informative post, and the youtube link to the Nuncio’s speech, which I listened to.

It is as you have described it. The Papal Nuncio was critical of the Democatic party platform and those Catholics who have given public support to the intrinsic evils contained in it (politicians like Biden, Pelosi, etc). He said nothing critical that I heard of anyone who may have voted Democratic.

I also found it revealing that he pointed to the inadequacy of the 1st Amendment as a guarantor of religious freedom. His presentation was of the Catholic understanding of religious liberty, not the American. IMO, they are not the same.

Lets see if you can make this connection if it is listed plain and simple;

vote for dem = vote for platform

support pro-abortion candidate and he wins = support pro-abortion candidate and you own it

 

[wynnejj]

No question of looking for loopholes.

To abort is evil; but when it becomes rampant, the government is compelled to let people do as they wish and it is the ones who abort that are answerable to God and NOT the government that did not criminalize the evil.

Moses was in no way guilty for permitting divorce but the ones who divorced are guilty.

There is nothing in the Bible to support your notion that Moses was in no way guilty for permitting divorced, but the ones who divorced are guilty. It is an interesting concept, since Joseph had decided to divorce Mary quietly to save her from the law.

About the requirement to criminalize abortion, I submit CCC 2273:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81