Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Lucky7]

You wouldn’t today defend anyone voting for the Nazis because the Nazi party promised or even delivered (free) health care and various other benefits; or even if their policies, on the whole, were more likely to improve the country industrially or economically: you wouldn’t, because you know that none of that could possibly excuse the evil they were doing.

I don’t know. The Jews did get a state out of that.

 

[Mickey]

Please show me a single official Church document (not a single person’s opinion, just to be clear) that gives you or anyone else the right to decide for me what is or is not proportionate.

Are you serious? There are countless teachings on the evil of abortion labeled as intrinsically evil. You ca be sure that if there were something proportionate to this evil…your Church would let you know. Open your eyes and your ears and see and hear what the Papal Nuncio (and all the other documents of the Church) are telling you.

 

[Mickey]

I believe Christians are called to not simply aim for the letter of the law but for the principles of the Gospel.

And so you vote for a man who unapologetically supports and champions abortion-on-demand and infanticide? And so you vote for a man who continually pushes for funding of abortion mills (Planned Parenthood)? And so you vote fo a man who may have the opportunity of appointing three supreme court justices thus solidifying Roe v Wade for generations?

Doesn’t make sense.

 

[seekerz]

Are you serious? There are countless teachings on the evil of abortion labeled as intrinsically evil. You ca be sure that if there were something proportionate to this evil…your Church would let you know. Open your eyes and your ears and see and hear what the Papal Nuncio (and all the other documents of the Church) are telling you.

What does the existence of intrinsic evil have to do with WHO decides what is “proportionate reason”? That phrase is hardly my invention, so why is the question so hard to answer?

 

[seekerz]

And so you vote for a man who unapologetically supports and champions abortion-on-demand and infanticide? And so you vote for a man who continually pushes for funding of abortion mills (Planned Parenthood)? And so you vote fo a man who may have the opportunity of appointing three supreme court justices thus solidifying Roe v Wade for generations?

Doesn’t make sense.

Mickey, Mickey, you are not required to exert yourself over my decisions of conscience. Answer one question if you will: can you place the complete list of intrinsic evils in order of importance?

 

[seekerz]

You cannot justify voting for someone who facilitates and thereby encourages mass-murder because he promises everyone bread and butter or any other form of security. The Nazis did the exact same thing, except I don’t think that they actually bankrupted Germany in the process. Their economic programs and policies actually worked, which unfortunately made them even more dangerous: and therein lies the problem, because it did not discourage, but rather further encouraged Germans to vote for them, which resulted in the Nazis eventually doing away with democracy altogether, once they felt they had earned the people’s trust by providing them with what soon turned out to be a completely false sense of security.

You wouldn’t today defend anyone voting for the Nazis because the Nazi party promised or even delivered (free) health care and various other benefits; or even if their policies, on the whole, were more likely to improve the country industrially or economically: you wouldn’t, because you know that none of that could possibly excuse the evil they were doing.

I wonder how far Ambraham Lincoln would have gotten if every abolitionist was as easily hoodwinked as most Christian Obama supporters are. I wonder if Obama appreciates that if the South had adopted the same methods he and his party deliberately employs to divide the vote, odds are he wouldn’t be President or, if he was, it would be of only the Northern half of the country.

Oh wait, but to support Lincoln as an abolitionist would have made you a one issue voter! And we’re not one issue voters; worse, to support Lincoln was to effectively risk splitting the country in two, even possibly starting a war, and even a civil war at that! All the more reason not to vote for Lincoln.

Obama’s Democrats won the last election by dividing and conquering. In that they demonstrated political shrewdness; however, that is no consolation for the countless babies being summarily executed right now by mass murderers who have the criminal audacity to arrogate to themselves the title of doctor. We’re Christians. We know better; and when future generations of Christians look back on these times and read the statistics of how many Catholics were found to be aiding and abeting the newest holocaust, well, our successor apologists are going to have a tough time excusing that; but, to be sure, they will be citing the same quotes and documents used by pro-lifers here, and probably blaming the Democrats for being so effectively misleading and deceptive in order to divide the conscientious electorate and so facilitate evil.

The question for Catholics in any election is not how bad abortion is - it is about the candidates’ ability/commitment to do something about it. What is the purpose of any conviction if not to spur action? It’s all about what I judge candidates to be inclined to do, and in this recent election, the preponderance of the evidence showed the candidates both inclined to keep abortion legal.

 

[Mickey]

What does the existence of intrinsic evil have to do with WHO decides what is “proportionate reason”? That phrase is hardly my invention, so why is the question so hard to answer?

It was already answered for you. The small footnote that you and a few others continue to hang your hat on…is not telling us that there are other issues that are as intrinsically evil as abortion. You cannot accept that…which is why you continue to spin the truth.

 

[Mickey]

you are not required to exert yourself over my decisions of conscience.

There is no exertion involved.

can you place the complete list of intrinsic evils in order of importance?

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a “proportionate reason” of an intrinsic evil that rises to, or surpassed, the evil of abortion. You cannot do it…because there is no greater evil than abortion.

You may not like the answer.
You must live with the decisions you make based on your conscience.

 

[seekerz]

It was already ansered for you. The small footnote thsat you and a few others continue to hang your hat on…is not telling us that there are other issues that are as intrinsically evil as abortion. You cannot accept that…which is why you continue to spin the truth.

It’s okay to refuse to answer any question - without apologies.

What small footnote are you referring to? Do you mean the one that gives us rights of conscience to support a person despite his abortion stance? There’s no need to “spin” anything. The Church has given us guidance in the truth - all that remains is for both sides of this debate to ***accept ***that.

 

[Mickey]

It’s all about what I judge candidates to be inclined to do

Uh…let’s see…one of the candidates is a champion of abortion-on-demand, infanticide, gay unions, Planned Parenthood, and the HHS mandate.

And you voted for him.

 

[seekerz]

There is no exertion involved.
The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a “proportionate reason” of an intrinsic evil that rises to, or surpassed, the evil of abortion. You cannot do it…because there is no greater evil than abortion.

You may not like the answer.
You must live with the decisions you make based on your conscience.

No greater evil than abortion? Then why is “thou shalt not kill” not the first commandment?

 

[Mickey]

It’s okay to refuse to answer any question

It has been answered many times…I believe numerous times by Lapey alone. But you do not have eyes to see or ears to hear the answer.

The Church has given us guidance in the truth

Yes. The Papal Nuncio was very clear about that. But sadly, many Catholics (and Christians in general) ignored the truth.

 

[seekerz]

Uh…let’s see…one of the candidates is a champion of abortion-on-demand, infanticide, gay unions, Planned Parenthood, and the HHS mandate.

And you voted for him.

You do not know me, but it does seem to bother you a whole lot that I exercised my rights of conscience in choosing to support Obama over Romney. Not sure why it should, but well…

 

[Mickey]

No greater evil than abortion? Then why is “thou shalt not kill” not the first commandment?

Should we talk about how many commandments the act of abortion violates?

 

[seekerz]

It has been answered many times…I believe numerous times by Lapey alone. But you do not have eyes to see or ears to hear the answer.
Yes. The Papal Nuncio was very clear about that. But sadly, many Catholics (and Christians in general) ignored the truth.

If I missed it, I apologize, but no - to my knowledge, Lapey did not answer the question: “who decides what is a proportionate reason”. It does not require many words - just indicate the person or entity.

 

[seekerz]

Should we talk about how many commandments the act of abortion violates?

Sure. I’m up for that. If I’m reading you well, you are referring to the usurping of God’s rights as Creator and I completely agree.

 

[Mickey]

You do not know me,

And I never will know you.

but it does seem to bother you a whole lot that I exercised my rights of conscience in choosing to support Obama over Romney.

No. It bothers me that so many Christians knowingly cast a vote of support for a man that is zealous for abortion-on-demand, infanticide, gay unions, Planned Parenthood, and the HHS mandate.

Not to mention the attempt to remove God from the party platform…with a resounding chorus of boos when God was reinstated.

 

[Lapey]

If I missed it, I apologize, but no - to my knowledge, Lapey did not answer the question: “who decides what is a proportionate reason”. It does not require many words - just indicate the person or entity.

The magisterium has, many times in many documents. We have posted them many times; you twist them. You owe me no apology for opposition to their teaching.

And we are called partisan…you and a few here will twist even the Ten Commandments to justify a democrat vote. What is the cause of the division? I think this is obvious, your mindset and Rence, Al, and many more here that will see us as simple minded republican hacks, when we spread what Church teachings and leaders proclaim. You won’t listen to us, the magisterium or anyone who dares to go against your sacred cow, the democrat party.

Let me ask you this question, since you won’t accept the answer given to yours repeatedly, if every bishop of the entire Church, up to and including the Pope would have made a statement condemning Obama and direct the American faithful to vote Romney; would you have left the Church, or just simply disobeyed their direction?

 

[Lapey]

There is always virtue in doing the right thing: following the law and paying taxes is one of those things. In addition, if I do it with a willing heart, I fail to see how the fact that paying taxes is mandatory disqualifies me from receiving the spiritual benefits of my generosity. I know of people, for example who decline claiming the charitable-giving tax deduction based on the principle that they don’t want to be repaid for giving. How is there no virtue in submitting a tax return based on the principles of generosity outlined in the Gospel? Can human laws nullify God’s promise to reward what we give in the right spirit?

The sentiment I perceived behind Prodigal Son’s post, and what made me put it in my signature, is not any equivalence between abortion and taxation. Rather, it is the principle that one cannot be selective about which important moral values to impose through law and which to leave up to personal choice. Of course, anything worth doing is better done voluntarily: that is true both for giving and for respecting life - which is why I willingly oppose abortion and accept government’s power and duty to tax. I also challenge your statement regarding how many people can be fed through charity vs taxation, but maybe you have some evidence to back that up?

But back to the matter at hand: Christ already gave us the foolproof way to reduce abortion, even in the absence of laws forbidding it : converting hearts to Him (not simply convincing people to choose life but convincing them to choose Jesus). The early Christians faced greater challenges than us, so the common excuse that this approach does not work fast enough says more about our faith and obedience to the Great Commission than it says about the state of the world.

Does that mean I’m against making abortion illegal? No. Just the same as with taxation, I believe Christians are called to not simply aim for the letter of the law but for the principles of the Gospel. As a matter of fact, I believe that in our present situation, seeking first the Kingdom will cause the rest to fall in line: we have to be Christ in the darkness of this world, in order to bring it to realization of the folly in rejecting His gift of life. This is my firm conviction born out of very close encounters with the practice of abortion.

How else will medical providers who firmly believe that pro-choice is the ‘compassionate’ side be convinced to help enforce laws against it? Where else will they encounter true compassion if not from encountering Christ? Who will bring them to that encounter, if not us? A law, even one as necessary and as just as the prohibition of abortion, is only so many words on paper unless it can be enforced.

I didn’t say there was no virtue in doing the right thing. Laws must be followed, taxes must be paid, to pay taxes willingly is not the virtue of generosity. Giving personally voluntarily is.

As far as changing hearts, do you think my words mean that I would make abortion illegal then stop preaching about the horrors of abortion? You do not have much confidence in me or anyone else here, or is it simply a disdain for people of differing views? In the way you twist peoples words, I think the latter.

 

[Lapey]

What does the existence of intrinsic evil have to do with WHO decides what is “proportionate reason”? That phrase is hardly my invention, so why is the question so hard to answer?

It has everything to do with understanding the importance the Magisterium has placed on certain actions. The “WHO” is the Magisterium. Proportionate reasons the way you understand it is a laity formed term, or meaning thereof. The Magisterium has declared differently many times, which all have been posted here, but to no avail. You and a few here know better than the Church’s leaders.