What about the other party (R) which introduced the evils? Are they forgiven for maintaining the status quo now? Is the good Archbishop aware that they had 6 consecutive years of reconciliatory power in all three branches of government to make it right but squandered it on some foolish wars which the Vatican itself opposed?We know that is not likely to happen any time soon.
What we have is one party (it begins with a D) that has intrinsic evils among its basic principles.
Christians have no choice but to take a stand against that party.
The “good Archbishop” as you call him…speaks for the Vatican. In other words, he is an envoy for the Pope. As a Catholic, you can accept this…or reject it…you have free will. But the message is clear:What about the other party (R) which introduced the evils? Are they forgiven for maintaining the status quo now? Is the good Archbishop aware that they had 6 consecutive years of reconciliatory power in all three branches of government to make it right but squandered it on some foolish wars which the Vatican itself opposed?
Indeed the Faith is increasingly under attack and the attack is gaining ground. See “The Five Stages of Religious Persecution” here and here.Perhaps the answer is projects like this one: Catholic Answers. It provides a portal where Catholics can come and ask questions and gain definitive answers.
The eternal faith is under attack from secular culture. In order to fight back, we must explore the richness of Scripture and Church teaching in order to present authentic Catholic positions on these issues.
Did anyone else find this remark sexist and distasteful besides me?They did until the game-changer decision in 1973 to make it every woman’s right. Try taking that away from her now.
**You all seem to be trying to drag Archbishop Vigano INTO your own biases about political parties on the American political scene. BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT ARCHBISHOP VIGANO SAID AT ALL.Archbishop Vigano is the Pope’s official representative to the United States. He speaks directly for the Vatican, so American Catholics should pay heed to his observations on our faithfulness to the Magisterium and the Holy See. Does anyone disagree with Archbishop Vigano, particularly regarding his statement that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”?
Having been the target of such remarks, I agree with you, Prodigal Son1. I have been told that, by virtue of my vote, I am a sinner–a mortal sinner. And not just once, but a number of times. It seems like many of the posters in CAF know the hearts of those who voted for President Obama. They have assumed that because of our vote we are “pro-abortion” or “pro-death” or “in league with Satan” and the “baby killer”. I think the most disturbing part of this is that the finger-pointers actually seem to enjoy doing the pointing. Why, I don’t know. All that I can say is to look to your own hearts before Someone starts writing **your ** sins in the sand.Actually, I’m sick of what I’m seeing on these forums. Catholics saying the cruelest things against other Catholics, without any appearances of regards whatsoever. I can see the vagueness in the language. Before the election, there were articles that referenced the vagueness of the language as being the reason the Bishops held an assembly. That assembly shows a lack of clarity.
I do not think we can compare the political realities of that time to current structure and society, Jim. We had an absolute Monarchy then and whilst that may have been the case, the C of E whose loyalty was to the Monarch and not the Pope, still retained most of our Catholic teachings. Even when initial legislation was proposed to introduce provisions giving wider access to divorce and abortion, debate in Parliament cited C of E’s ecclesial authority as rooted on Catholicism. And, that was the case until modern and more recent legislation when Parliamentarians, particularly our Ecclesial Law Lords, became avant garde Anglicans.It’s rather like in King Henry VIII’s England, which was then a Catholic nation. When the King passed the Act of Supremacy making himself the primary authority of the Church, many Catholics didn’t protest. Thomas More did, of course, and he lost his head for it. But the nation became Anglican with barely a whimper.
Nobody doubts that the Democratic party has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.” But you are still missing the point:Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, lamented the fact that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”
I think this could be a warning about falling into mortal sin.
Well said.Having been the target of such remarks, I agree with you, Prodigal Son1. I have been told that, by virtue of my vote, I am a sinner–a mortal sinner. And not just once, but a number of times. It seems like many of the posters in CAF know the hearts of those who voted for President Obama. They have assumed that because of our vote we are “pro-abortion” or “pro-death” or “in league with Satan” and the “baby killer”. I think the most disturbing part of this is that the finger-pointers actually seem to enjoy doing the pointing. Why, I don’t know. All that I can say is to look to your own hearts before Someone starts writing **your ** sins in the sand.
Did you miss the part where the Bishops revisited the language and left it alone, reportedly, one reason being they didn’t want a ‘bloody public debate’ with a minority of Bishops who were for a stronger language?From the NCR article: “We had to remind people that this is not a voter guide,” Blaire said. “I am very strongly committed to the idea that it is not the role of the church to tell people how to vote. Our role is to provide some moral perspective so people can form their moral conscience.”
What they ended up is a document written by a committee with little clarity, and sufficient clauses to allow anyone to pick and choose the parts they liked. To say it’s not a voters guide is surely correct. So what’s the point? It’s nearly useless and should have just been dropped. If they wanted clarity they could have adopted the Catholic Answers “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics.”
The bishops have spent enough time on this document; it helped no one.
In the future they’ll be busy trying to defend the religious liberty of the Catholic Church.
Although there may be some who try to parse just how much liberty they’re willing to give away.
Exactly. Now we have people dissenting and thinking the right thing to do is to remain Catholic, remain in the Church…and work to change it from within.What we can compare and find contrast on, however, is not on C of E but, with members of the Catholic community. At the time of Henry VIII, dissidents went on to become Anglicans and many did so to safeguard their interests, whatever they may be. But, the Catholic clergy and laity who remained Catholics retained their Catholic instincts and were true to our faith, which is not the case now. “Priests holes” in many premises still exist in this country and one hopes they serve as a reminder to Catholics over here of the time when we did not compromise our faith over politics.
Yup…see HHS mandate and the majority of Catholics voting for Obama.Catholic division will lead to government persecution of the Catholic Faith. We are already well on our way.
There is another thread on this same subject in World News.
The thing is it isn’t the US “Faithful” that are surrendering their religious freedom. It’s the US Dissenters who are selling the faithful out.Indeed the Faith is increasingly under attack and the attack is gaining ground. See “The Five Stages of Religious Persecution” here and here.
In the United States, we are entering stage 4. Religious persecution doesn’t descend upon us all at once, but comes at us in stages. Some people don’t notice until it’s too late. And even when it’s too late, those who are only loosely attached to their Faith will suffer little. Those who live by their Faith without compromise will suffer much.
It’s rather like in King Henry VIII’s England, which was then a Catholic nation. When the King passed the Act of Supremacy making himself the primary authority of the Church, many Catholics didn’t protest. Thomas More did, of course, and he lost his head for it. But the nation became Anglican with barely a whimper.
How easily, I wonder, will the U.S. Faithful surrender their religious freedom?
The document is not confusing at all to me. On the contrary, it is crystal clear. But of course, those who are stubbornly biased towards a black-and-white view of everything will find little support in the document. They will rather search for solace in the views of a few individual bishops, not speaking for the majority of the USCCB, who with their ‘clarifying’ comments felt the need to box in the conscience of Catholic voters to a degree that the document itself refuses to do. In this refusal the document is perfectly in line with the comments of Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, then the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the faith.It’s been shown that the men of the Church have stated the document was ‘confusing’.
Not at all.Nobody doubts that the Democratic party has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.” But you are still missing the point:
Yes. Those who have put the Democratic party ahead of Church teachings will never understand what the document truly says.those who are stubbornly biased towards a black-and-white view of everything will find little support in the document.
No one here has claimed to know hearts.It seems like many of the posters in CAF know the hearts of those who voted for President Obama .
How do you see the intent of anyone’s heart, other than your own?The thing is it isn’t the US “Faithful” that are surrendering their religious freedom. It’s the US Dissenters who are selling the faithful out.