Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[_Abyssinia]

The Church is not shy about spreading absolutes and rules. Though Bishop Gracida, Archbisop John J Myers and other individual Bishops are highly regarded and of course should be considered, they do not speak on behalf of the Church. The Pope Himself concludes that there are proportionate reasons and gives us guidance to determine proportionate reasons. But just like “grave/serious reasons for using NFP” doesn’t spell them out for us. If the Church absolutely doesn’t consider healthcare and the economy (which directly affects everyone, including the poor, sick, disabled, very young and very old), they would come out and spell it out like they do other absolutes. But they don’t. They put out encyclicals, the Catechism, and the US Bishops’ teachings to help us come to our own conclusions. That doesn’t make either one of us right/wrong, good/bad, or anything else. The only thing that it makes us is different.

I am not going to go around in circles, this is my last comment on this. Pope Benedict did not say that economy or health care are proportionate reasons, the Bishops in their authority have described what those are and are not. When a Bishop says something that goes against your views then he becomes an individual Bishop who do not speak on behalf of the Church. I suspect if there was a Bishop that said a proportionate reason to vote for a pro abortion candidate was health care or the economy you would be showing it as evidence that your position on proportionate reasons is fine

 

[wynnejj]

So what happened in the meantime? Apparently the arguments of the pro-Republican Catholics have managed to soften you up, even though they are terribly one-sided, and you forgot about the rationality and the moral reasonableness of my arguments.

Your moral reasonableness relies on the belief that the abortion issue cannot be solved by political candidates who have the half-hearted support of its constituency. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It charges pro-life candidates with being unsuccessful at best, liars at worst - using their pro-life stance as a selling point which they know they can never deliver.

Yet the Papal Nuncio places his interpretation of Christisfidelis Laici to come to the conclusion that the “social justice cure” platform today is undecipherable, ambiguous and … unsuccessful. Then he follows up with a sweeping denunciation of a “major political party” with a platform containing intrinsic evil and suggests that there is intentional attempts to divide & conquer the Church.

I’ve been reading Christisfidelis Laici today, because Vigano’s view of the document as it relates to religious freedom suggested to me that unachievable(?) platforms against “intrinsic evil” issues always trump the “social justice cure” platforms. This question is dividing Catholics and we don’t have any marching orders. Vigano’s address suggested that the Pope is giving us some clearer direction on the Life v Social Justice dichotomy. Frankly, I have not seen anything strong enough to come away with what Vigano claims is stated or implied in that apostolic exhortation.

 

[Faithdancer]

Civil laws become meaningless unless there are some penalties imposed. There are still laws against adultery and fornication, for example, but I have yet to hear of a simple fine against being caught if indeed anyone is even arrested for it. Not only that but these immoral acts are glamorized in movies and the consequences seldom mentioned.

Oh I agree completely, laws must carry penalties for those who break them. Yet let us punish those who perform the abortions, rather than criminalize the desperate and confused women who obtain them.

 

[estesbob]

Oh I agree completely, laws must carry penalties for those who break them. Yet let us punish those who perform the abortions, rather than criminalize the desperate and confused women who obtain them.

Which is the way it was when abortion was illegal.

 

[wynnejj]

Oh I agree completely, laws must carry penalties for those who break them. Yet let us punish those who perform the abortions, rather than criminalize the desperate and confused women who obtain them.

Unless said women are repeat offenders?

 

[Rence]

I am not going to go around in circles, this is my last comment on this. Pope Benedict did not say that economy or health care are proportionate reasons, the Bishops in their authority have described what those are and are not. When a Bishop says something that goes against your views then he becomes an individual Bishop who do not speak on behalf of the Church. I suspect if there was a Bishop that said a proportionate reason to vote for a pro abortion candidate was health care or the economy you would be showing it as evidence that your position on proportionate reasons is fine

And I don’t even have to ‘suspect’ that you’d completely discount the words of a Bishop who says healthcare and the economy are proportionate reason. It goes both ways.

 

[livingwordunity]

And I don’t even have to ‘suspect’ that you’d completely discount the words of a Bishop who says healthcare and the economy are proportionate reason.

Who is the bishop who said that the economy and “healthcare” are bigger issues than the millions of innocent babies murdered with abortion and the attack on traditional marriage? By the way, the economy stinks with the current admin. And the so-called universal healthcare isn’t universal since it denies the right of healthcare to the unborn child. Nor is it affordable since we have to pay high taxes, premiums, and fines.

 

[Mickey]

And I don’t even have to ‘suspect’ that you’d completely discount the words of a Bishop who says healthcare and the economy are proportionate reason.

There are none who say that.

 

[JMJSHJ]

The Church is not shy about spreading absolutes and rules. Though Bishop Gracida, Archbisop John J Myers and other individual Bishops are highly regarded and of course should be considered, they do not speak on behalf of the Church. The Pope Himself concludes that there are proportionate reasons and gives us guidance to determine proportionate reasons. But just like “grave/serious reasons for using NFP” doesn’t spell them out for us. If the Church absolutely doesn’t consider healthcare and the economy (which directly affects everyone, including the poor, sick, disabled, very young and very old), they would come out and spell it out like they do other absolutes. But they don’t. They put out encyclicals, the Catechism, and the US Bishops’ teachings to help us come to our own conclusions. That doesn’t make either one of us right/wrong, good/bad, or anything else. The only thing that it makes us is different.

If the economy or healthcare are as important abortion why haven’t any Bishop taken any Presidential Administration to court to sue them? 34 dioceses are suing the Obama Administration over the HHS mandate.

 

[BroomWagon]

there are none who say that.

**
Bravo!! **

 

[livingwordunity]

To recap:

And I don’t even have to ‘suspect’ that you’d completely discount the words of a Bishop who says healthcare and the economy are proportionate reason.

Who is the bishop who said that the economy and “healthcare” are bigger issues than the millions of innocent babies murdered with abortion and the attack on traditional marriage? By the way, the economy stinks with the current admin. And the so-called universal healthcare isn’t universal since it denies the right of healthcare to the unborn child. Nor is it affordable since we have to pay high taxes, premiums, and fines.

There are none who say that.

 

[estesbob]

And I don’t even have to ‘suspect’ that you’d completely discount the words of a Bishop who says healthcare and the economy are proportionate reason. It goes both ways.

About as likely as a Bishop saying Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.

 

[wynnejj]

All of this is true. Yet the question must be asked: Why don’t the Bishops pressure the Republican Party to act more forcefully on these principles? The Republicans have conclusively demonstrated that, when push comes to shove, something else will ALWAYS be more important than ending legal abortion, no matter how much (around election time) they say they want to do so. This HAS to be a factor in ordinary Catholics’ voting decision, after nearly 40 years of Republican promises.

Thank you!!

All of this is true. Yet the question must be asked: Why don’t the Bishops pressure Catholic laity to act more forcefully on our own principles? The Catholic laity have conclusively demonstrated to all interested parties that, when push comes to shove, something else will ALWAYS be more important than ending legal abortion, no matter how much (around election time) they say they want to do so. This has to be a factor in all interested parties Pro-Life policy resolve, after nearly 40 years of Catholic voter decisions.

Arrghh. :banghead:

 

[BroomWagon]

All of this is true. Yet the question must be asked: Why don’t the Bishops pressure Catholic laity to act more forcefully on our own principles? The Catholic laity have conclusively demonstrated to all interested parties that, when push comes to shove, something else will ALWAYS be more important than ending legal abortion, no matter how much (around election time) they say they want to do so. This has to be a factor in all interested parties Pro-Life policy resolve, after nearly 40 years of Catholic voter decisions.

Arrghh. :banghead:

It’s ironic and unfair as well that a lot of those who tout the questions as to why the Republican Candidate did not go for total abortion are often those who are supporting a 3rd party candidate or Obama. :whacky:

 

[wynnejj]

It’s ironic and unfair as well that a lot of those who tout the questions as to why the Republican Candidate did not go for total abortion are often those who are supporting a 3rd party candidate or Obama. :whacky:

Yet, many of those who voted 3rd party can walk away with their personal integrity intact. That’s not so whacky. Not the way I’d go, but not whacky.

 

[BroomWagon]

Yet, many of those who voted 3rd party can walk away with their personal integrity intact. That’s not so whacky. Not the way I’d go, but not whacky.

If that vote for 3rd party was for Virgil Goode or similar, not Libertarian though. Yes.

 

[ProVobis]

All of this is true. Yet the question must be asked: Why don’t the Bishops pressure Catholic laity to act more forcefully on our own principles? The Catholic laity have conclusively demonstrated to all interested parties that, when push comes to shove, something else will ALWAYS be more important than ending legal abortion, no matter how much (around election time) they say they want to do so. This has to be a factor in all interested parties Pro-Life policy resolve, after nearly 40 years of Catholic voter decisions.

Make that 44 years.

And you can blame me; I voted for Nixon. Biggest regret of my life.

 

[estesbob]

Make that 44 years.

And you can blame me; I voted for Nixon. Biggest regret of my life.

I voted for McGovern!

 

[wynnejj]

Make that 44 years.

And you can blame me; I voted for Nixon. Biggest regret of my life.

Oh no. Not that old refrain again. Get over it. C’mon, abortion, the economy … it’s all Nixon’s fault? But if you are really, really honest, it’s all Eve’s fault … with that “Forget God’s boundaries and share the forbidden fruits” thing.

 

[oldcelt]

Oh no. Not that old refrain again. Abortion, the economy … it’s all Nixon’s fault. But if you are really, really honest, it’s all Eve’s fault … with that “Forget God’s boundaries and share the forbidden fruits” thing.

I think you missed ProVobis’ and EstesBob’s humor.