Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Mickey]

What part of other do you not understand?

What part of intrinsic evil do you not understand?

 

[Mickey]

You are using 2 paragraphs from a document which has been since been clarifed by many Bishops including Bishop Vasa who contributed to Fathful citizenship and said the genral consensus was that a pro abortion candidate was disqualified. Why not inform yourself with Vatican encyclicals and speeches from the Pope on voting and politics too?

I have seen this many times amongst those who are attempting to justify their vote for Obama and his agenda of abortion on demand and infanticide.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I have seen this many times amongst those who are attempting to justify their vote for Obama and his agenda of abortion on demand and infanticide.

This “major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles” also enacted the HHS mandate, which Archbishop Vigano said “poses a grave threat to the vitality of Catholicism in the United States”.

What more condemnation of the Obama candidacy do Catholics need? It is all for naught given our post-election status, but it still pains me to see liberals claim wiggle room in defined Catholic teachings to support their vote for Obama and other Democratic Party candidates.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Vatican prelate Archbishop Raymond Burke said Faithful Citizenship is party to blame for the election of the ‘most pro abortion president’ in US history. He said Faithful citizenship ‘led to confusion’ among Catholics

Doubt you can think of another USSCB comment which has had so many Bishops have to clarify

And why then was it released unchanged in 2008 and 2012?

Precisely because the majority of bishops did not want to box in the conscience of Catholics, as some individual bishops have strived to do with their more specific interpretation.

See also:

We are Catholics. We cannot find a clergy that agrees with our own view. That’s not the way it works. We need one teaching, from the Church as a whole, and not ‘dozens’ out of over 170 Bishops.

Not all are intellectually equal and some require a more clear and direct instruction. That did not happen.

I have to go, but had another thought.

If an assembly of Bishops meets to discuss something of debate, do they vote before reaching a conclusion. For example, if they met because this voter’s guide was considered vague by some, would they have voted to change the language, or to let it remain the same? If so, doesn’t it suggest a majority thought the language was as it should be?

Even considering ‘dozens’, it doesn’t represent a majority.

I’m not arguing for any other than a clear spoken instruction from the Church as a whole.

 

[Al_Moritz]

What part of intrinsic evil do you not understand?

Your reply is totally beside the point, and you know it. (If you don’t, I can’t help you.)

 

[epan]

Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

Fidelity to God and the Church has “hastened martyrdom and persecution for many believers of the past, and of today,” he said. “In all of these instances, we see that the faithful persist in their fidelity to Jesus Christ and his Holy Church! For throughout her history, the Church has gained strength when persecuted,” the archbishop said.

Religious liberty is a human, civil and natural right that is not conferred by the state, he said, adding “religious freedom is the exercise of fidelity to God and his Holy Church without compromise.” “What God has given, the servant state does not have the competence to remove,” Archbishop Vigano affirmed.

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=6530#ixzz2CKnqINhk

Is he advocating martyrdom, as a response, which will strengthen the Church?

Religious liberty has historically been conferred by the State. The monarch determined the religion of the people. This way of thinking about religious liberty is very recent in the Church’s history, is it not?

 

[_Abyssinia]

And why then was it released unchanged in 2008 and 2012?

Precisely because the majority of bishops did not want to box in the conscience of Catholics, as some individual bishops have strived to do with their more specific interpretation.

See also:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-introductory-note.cfm

Bishops added a introductory note last year, seems to me this was in response to the confusion

The moral and human challenges outlined in the second half of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship remain pressing national issues. In particular, our Conference is focused on several current and fundamental problems, some involving opposition to intrinsic evils and others raising serious moral questions:

• Continuing destruction of unborn children through abortion and other threats to the lives and dignity of others who are vulnerable, sick, or unwanted;
• Renewed efforts to force Catholic ministries—in health care, education, and social services—to violate their consciences or stop serving those in need;
• Intensifying efforts to redefine marriage and enact measures which undermine marriage as the permanent, faithful, and fruitful union of one man and one woman and a fundamental moral and social institution essential to the common good;
• An economic crisis which has devastated lives and livelihoods, increasing national and global unemployment, poverty, and hunger; increasing deficits and debt and the duty to respond in ways which protect those who are poor and vulnerable as well as future generations;
• The failure to repair a broken immigration system with comprehensive measures that promote true respect for law, protect the human rights and dignity of immigrants and refugees, recognize their contributions to our nation, keep families together, and advance the common good;
• Wars, terror, and violence which raise serious moral questions on the use of force and its human and moral costs in a dangerous world, particularly the absence of justice, security, and peace in the Holy Land and throughout the Middle East.

“It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote. It applies Catholic moral principles to a range of important issues and warns against misguided appeals to “conscience” to ignore fundamental moral claims, to reduce Catholic moral concerns to one or two matters, or to justify choices simply to advance partisan, ideological, or personal interests. It does not offer a quantitative listing of issues for equal consideration, but outlines and makes important distinctions among moral issues acknowledging that some involve the clear obligation to oppose intrinsic evils which can never be justified and that others require action to pursue justice and promote the common good. In short, it calls Catholics to form their consciences in the light of their Catholic faith and to bring our moral principles to the debate and decisions about candidates and issues”

“As Americans, we are also blessed with religious liberty which safeguards our right to bring our principles and moral convictions into the public arena. These Constitutional freedoms need to be both exercised and protected, as some seek to mute the voices or limit the freedoms of religious believers and religious institutions. Catholics have the same rights and duties as others to participate fully in public life. The Church through its institutions must be free to carry out its mission and contribute to the common good without being pressured to sacrifice fundamental teachings and moral principles.”

Faithful citizenship as said above, is not a voter guide and people should not be using it to advance partisan interests which I see some Catholic democrats doing

The isue of conscience the note brings up, I assume speaks of a conscience that narrows issues, and ignores marriage, religious liberty, and protecting life from conception to natural death. Also see that it says the document does not offer a listing of issues for equal consideration; some Catholics have equalised all social teaching on a equal field when there are more serious sins than others. Also see the attention given to the value of religious liberty and 'Continuing destruction of unborn children through abortion … ’ starts as a ‘current and fundamental problems’ among ‘pressing national issues’

 

[Mickey]

Your reply is totally beside the point, and you know it. (If you don’t, I can’t help you.)

No. Your reply is completely irrelevent. And if you do not have eyes to see and ears to hear…then I cannot help you.

 

[Cbus]

I kind of struggle with the whole gay issue thing. Well actually, I don’t. I agree with what and how it is stated the in the catechism, but that doesn’t seem to be how we are approaching the issue. It does forbid us from discriminating against them.

Of course sacramental gay marriage does not exists, but if someone says that this other person is special to me and is the one I want society to view as my family with all of the rights and privileged that entails, I don’t see a huge problem with that. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with gayness. What if two old windows needed each other for support, and it has nothing to do with sexuality or romantic feelings? Why not let them enter into a domestic partnership? I don’t know. I just think it is a dangerous road to go down to start holding non-Catholics to our standards. If we push our beliefs on the others, then they feel justified in pushing things like the HHS mandate on us.

We’re hyperventilating about our religious freedom while we are doing our best the violate the religious freedom of others.

 

[Mickey]

What more condemnation of the Obama candidacy do Catholics need? It is all for naught given our post-election status, but it still pains me to see liberals claim wiggle room in defined Catholic teachings to support their vote for Obama and other Democratic Party candidates.

No doubt. I suppose they are trying to cushion their conscience.

I can’t believe any Christian could possibly justify voting for this man and his intrinsically evil agenda.

 

[Cbus]

No doubt. I suppose they are trying to cushion their conscience.

I can’t believe any Christian could possibly justify voting for this man and his intrinsically evil agenda.

You do understand that a large part of the Republican party, including the former vice-presidential candidate, shares the same philosophy as the church of satan, right?

That is not made up. Google “Ayn Rand Curch of Satan.” It’s right there on their own website.

If you’ve read Atlas Shrugged, you cannot deny its influence on more Republicans than just Paul Ryan. He was just the only one to be dumb enough to admit it. It’s the same ideas that Republicans have been pushing lately all the way down to even the same buzz words.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You do understand that a large part of the Republican party, including the former vice-presidential candidate, shares the same philosophy as the church of satan, right?

That is not made up. Google “Ayn Rand Curch of Satan.” It’s right there on their own website.

If you’ve read Atlas Shrugged, you cannot deny its influence on more Republicans than just Paul Ryan. He was just the only one to be dumb enough to admit it. It’s the same ideas that Republicans have been pushing lately all the way down to even the same buzz words.

nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa

“I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist”

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says

realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/14/paul_ryan_rejects_ayn_rands_objectivism_philosophy.html

Brit Hume, Fox News: What is your view of Ayn Rand? Are you an Ayn Rand disciple?

Rep. Paul Ryan: No. I really enjoyed her novels, Atlas Shrugged in particular. It triggered my interest in economics. That’s where I got into studying economics. That’s why I wanted to study the whole field of economics

I later in life learned about what her philosophy was, it’s called Objectivism. It’s something that I completely disagree with. It’s an atheistic philosophy. But I think what she’s done is she’s showed – she came from communism. She showed how the pitfalls of socialism can hurt the economy, can hurt people, families and individuals and that to me was very compelling novels. Which says freedom, free enterprise, liberty is so much better than totalitarianism and socialism. Those novels, I thought were interesting. But her philosophy, which is different, is something I just don’t agree with

 

[Cbus]

He said that after someone pointed out the church of satan thing. Before that Ayn Rand was required reading for his staffers. That is true.

I’m not saying he willfully shared the same philosophy. He didn’t know, but still…

 

[Cbus]

“I grew up reading Ayn Rand, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.”

– U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, Republican vice presidential candidate, in a 2005 speech

bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-21/what-ayn-rand-taught-paul-ryan.html

 

[Al_Moritz]

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-introductory-note.cfm

Bishops added a introductory note last year, seems to me this was in response to the confusion

Which doesn’t change anything about the already discussed content of the voting guide.

 

[Al_Moritz]

“I grew up reading Ayn Rand, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.”

– U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, Republican vice presidential candidate, in a 2005 speech

bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-21/what-ayn-rand-taught-paul-ryan.html

Precisely. Ryan has recently ‘distanced’ himself from Rand. but those who believe that this was honest and not a purely political move are fooling themselves. Ayn Rand is a morally repulsive atheist (not all atheists are), and Ryan (and Romney, see his 47 % and recent ‘gift’ remarks) are thoroughly influenced by her callous, cold-hearted philosophy of ‘makers’ and ‘takers’ which totally flies in the face of Catholic social teaching.

But the Tea Party Catholics here are willing to overlook or even embrace any anti-Catholic moral atrocity coming from the GOP, since the GOP is the self-proclaimed Holy Party of Pro-Life (not that this bears out in practice, more on this in my upcoming post about proportional reasons).

 

[_Abyssinia]

Which doesn’t change anything about the already discussed content of the voting guide.

It does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote

 

[Pork_Roll]

Here’s the thing about Ayn Rand–darling of the GOP–she wrote a book, rather a section of a book, blasting Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio. While there may be truth in her writings, there are truths in the writings of Karl Marx. However I doubt any politician would say too many positive things about Karl for good reason. As a catholic, you shouldn’t admire either of them IMO.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Uhhh…because there are other moral issues that can be compared according to proportionate reasons…but not abortion. Abortion is the intrinsic evil above all evil. It is the murder of the innocent child in the womb. You are Catholic and you do not know this?
Perhaps these “millions of Catholics” did not want it to be so clear?

We must have the eyes to see…and the ears to hear.

I believe you’ve seen my beliefs which are pro life and from conception, when two living cells merge. Honestly, why did you ask that question?

I don’t believe millions of Catholics intentionally went against Church teaching. Too many are using phrases like, ‘they went against Church, and God.’ too often, without any attempts to really understand the problem.

To be perfectly honest, the Church is obligated to teach us clearly, so that everyone can understand. What other teachings are of such a great debate as this voting guide’s language? None.

 

[J_Peterson]

This whole thing bothers me. If the fate of our immortal souls really do depend on who we vote for why don’t the say to heck with tax exemption, vote for x or don’t vote for y? They were very clear with how we should vote on the “Death with Dignity Act” (not that there was any question).

After work I prayed about it. I told God that these statements by church leaders don’t feel right and I asked Him to let me know what to do. I’d vote republican for the rest of my life if He truly wants me to. Right after, a homeless guy asked for change and I gave him a dollar. He laughed and said that it was his first donation of the night and the largest so far. That made me smile. I consider that prayer answered.