Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Lapey]

Here’s the link to the Catechism and the Church’s stance on abortion:usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=37-chapter17.xhtml%23para2271

Even the simplest person should be able to make the connection that if the Church is adamantly against abortion, they shouldn’t vote for a political candidate that openly supports the practice.

I must shout out from the rooftop about your post here!! This is dead on accurate, if the “Faithful Citizen” document, or Cardinal Ratzinger’s document from '04 (at least the footnote) would be the entire deposit of truth I would say there was great confusion; but this could be no further from the truth. These two pieces of documentation are only fractions of the direction Mother Church has given us, starting with the Holy Scriptures.

To be confused by the USCCB document or cardinal Ratzinger shows possibly two options, either a person is too lazy to follow up from the confusion to find the truth of teh Church, or they do not want to know for sure so they can continue to support their ideological opinions more than the Church.

 

[Lapey]

No despair here. One can live in a concentration camp and be a joyful saint. That’s why Maximilian Kolbe is canonized, and Father Kapaun’s cause is promoted.

No. No despair. Just a recognition that persecution is increasing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have been given answers, by the bishops, Fr. Serpa, me and many. You refuse to hear then in order to keep your “vagueness” argument against the bishops. This is troubling to me.

No one has condemned Catholics, if a Catholic chooses a pro-abortion candidate like Obama, against what he/she knows is truth, they have condemned themselves. If they choose in ignorance of true teachings there is no sin. To “arrogantly” reject the teachings, even though we may think we are "following a “well formed” conscience is in fact rejecting Church teachings.

And to the ignore posters issue, you may not have me on ignore, but I am not expecting you to respond because you know there is no chance I will compromise on this argument; there is no room to compromise on this argument.

The vagueness argument seems to have ground according to Burke and Chaput. Chaput said the document was not very clear, and Burke stated it was confusing. Read back through the thread and you’ll see links to those prominent Catholics view of the teaching from the hierarchy.

The condemnation is evident to the objective eye, I assure you. There are those who are pushing others away, to great extents.

Too many are clinging to only parts of a message from any man of the Church, and for what seems to be the ‘conservative vs liberal’ purposes. People cling to what they can use in arguments and ignore anything else. Let’s just look at what the topic of this thread addresses. The Papal nuncio ‘laments’. No where is he calling for a separation in the Church. No where does he address the ‘not very clear’ or ‘confusion’ as Chaput and Burke has done, so therefore it must not exist? Is that how it’s supposed to work?

No room to compromise? No one asks for compromise. That doesn’t mean we shut down on each other. No solution will be found that way.

What we have is a group that demands, justifies, and argues for the right to condemn others, and drop all charity in the process. There is no attempt to understand nothing, not even the possibility that some could be working from a conscience that is not well formed, through no fault of their own. I believe you’ve see that said, but it’s not a part of your discussion. Why is it preferred to lay a blame for not having a well formed conscience? Why is it to be automatically assumed to be ‘intentionally’ rejecting Church teaching?

As I said, some latch on to a few things said and it’s case closed, while ignoring everything that is said by them, or other men of the Church.

 

[Lapey]

How about the President who appointed enough justices to make it legal in the first place?

How about playing in the present world; we cannot change the past, babies are continuing to die now. Why argue against the Church and Her leaders because of the past?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I must shout out from the rooftop about your post here!! This is dead on accurate, if the “Faithful Citizen” document, or Cardinal Ratzinger’s document from '04 (at least the footnote) would be the entire deposit of truth I would say there was great confusion; but this could be no further from the truth. These two pieces of documentation are only fractions of the direction Mother Church has given us, starting with the Holy Scriptures.

To be confused by the USCCB document or cardinal Ratzinger shows possibly two options, either a person is too lazy to follow up from the confusion to find the truth of teh Church, or they do not want to know for sure so they can continue to support their ideological opinions more than the Church.

No condemnations, but those ‘lazy’ Catholics?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This might take the wind of the staunch partisans…

Archbishop Chaput sees election days as ‘tough times’ for Catholics

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput says that when it comes to voting, Catholics may not be able to support either the Republicans or the Democrats, now and in the coming years.

“The day may come when Catholics can support neither of the main American political parties or their candidates. Some think it’s already arrived,” Philadelphia’s archbishop wrote in a Nov. 6 essay for The Witherspoon Institute.

“Serious Catholics” who believe in the Church’s teaching on social and life issues “can’t settle comfortably in either political party,” he remarked.

This is what I’ve been arguing since prior to the election, while people told me I must vote and I must vote for Romney. You support Obama to write in a third party candidate, they told me, or I was ‘wasting’ a vote. Seems the Archbishop understands those who could not/cannot accept the major party candidates.

 

[Lapey]

They did until the game-changer decision in 1973 to make it every woman’s right. Try taking that away from her now.

I’m good with that, let’s do it. No, get on board to oppose EVERY pro-abortion candidate or legislation that comes up for vote.

When the choice is as it was in this election choose properly and not by party.

Two candidates were in position to win, one pro-abortion on demand and one abortion in certain circumstances; both pro-abortion but big difference in the application.

The choice was Romney or a no vote or a third party. There aren’t any documents which support voting for Obama, unless they are taken out of context of the entire deposit of Truth; Mother Church.

 

[wynnejj]

I think that it is beyond comprehension that any Christian could possibly vote for someone who champions these issues.

I want to highlight the word “Christian”. All Christians know that Jesus is Lord and became Man – that is, our true brother – in all stages of the development of man – from conception and death. He was our brother and, by the same token, we are his brother. Therefore, social justice must include the unborn and elderly as “equals” among citizens that especially protect them in their vulnerability. One cannot barter the principles of social justice for all, even if achievability looks bleak, with the common goods goals of social justice for the “recognized citizen” only, even if achievability prospects look good. Those who do not recognize our brother must simply be overridden no matter how effective they are in advancing common goods goals for the “recognized citizen” only.

 

[BroomWagon]

I’m good with that, let’s do it. No, get on board to oppose EVERY pro-abortion candidate or legislation that comes up for vote.

When the choice is as it was in this election choose properly and not by party.

Two candidates were in position to win, one pro-abortion on demand and one abortion in certain circumstances; both pro-abortion but big difference in the application.

The choice was Romney or a no vote or a third party. There aren’t any documents which support voting for Obama, unless they are taken out of context of the entire deposit of Truth; Mother Church.

How true. I did not see it but I understand in the new movie Lincoln, “abolition” of slavery is taken up. Tommy Lee Jones plays the part of a strict abolitionist who wanted slavery abolished and equality restored all in one swoop.

Lincoln was for abolition but was a pragmatist too, so they say in the movie that to go North, you often have to East or West first, this is the same way with the Abortion issue and those not addressing this seem to often be disingenuous in their intent…

Those who voted for Obama or warn against Romney who pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, let him down and those with this point in effect, it needs to be said again, play into the expansion of abortions, in effect support the deaths of the unborn.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I am pretty sure that the Church does teach it can excommunicate sinners who will not repent. Rather than dig through bible versus I will just link to another thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19184

I would not understand Church history if it could not.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am pretty sure that the Church does teach it can excommunicate sinners who will not repent. Rather than dig through bible versus I will just link to another thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19184

I would not understand Church history if it could not.

I said the Church has that right, through the authoritative men of the Church and NOT the laity. I also said that the authoritative men do not shut the doors on those excommunicated. They withhold the sacraments and still encourage the excommunicated to attend the Church, where corrections are offered.

Corrections are not found by shoving people into the dark and leaving them there.

 

[Lapey]

Ok, and how does that change what Burke and Chaput said about the Faithful Citizenship?

The Church did not speak with one voice. But some on these forums lay blame on the flock and the flock only. Why?

I f these would be the only documents to be used, you would be 110% correct, they are not! Please use your energy to do research into the Churches teachings instead of constantly going after the shepherds of the Church.

If you truly want to help people, faithful people, follow Church teaching, use your powers of intellect to research truth in the CCC and bible and council documents to understand Faithful Citizenship and Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings in the correct light and not the darkness of the political system of this very split and confused country.

 

[Lapey]

They did until the game-changer decision in 1973 to make it every woman’s right. Try taking that away from her now.

Did anyone else find this remark sexist and distasteful besides me?

I’m good with that, let’s do it. No, get on board to oppose EVERY pro-abortion candidate or legislation that comes up for vote.

When the choice is as it was in this election choose properly and not by party.

Two candidates were in position to win, one pro-abortion on demand and one abortion in certain circumstances; both pro-abortion but big difference in the application.

The choice was Romney or a no vote or a third party. There aren’t any documents which support voting for Obama, unless they are taken out of context of the entire deposit of Truth; Mother Church.

I did but I failed to make the point about that aspect in this post of mine.

 

[Mickey]

.

There is nothing confusing or controversial about this statement. If both candidates are equally pro-death…then one must find another option.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I f these would be the only documents to be used, you would be 110% correct, they are not! Please use your energy to do research into the Churches teachings instead of constantly going after the shepherds of the Church.

If you truly want to help people, faithful people, follow Church teaching, use your powers of intellect to research truth in the CCC and bible and council documents to understand Faithful Citizenship and Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings in the correct light and not the darkness of the political system of this very split and confused country.

Number one, I wrote in a solid pro life candidate. No where does the Church teach that a Catholic must vote for only one candidate.

Number two, does everyone have the same intellect, or are they equally informed about political events, or Church teachings? No, of course not. Please share with us the 3 conditions for an occasion of sin to exist.

I am not going after the shepherds of the Church, and sincerely wonder why that specific wording was chosen?

The men of the Church are divided, admittedly through some of the men of the Church. That signifies a significant problem for those who apply intentional rejecting Church teachings to millions of Catholics, they don’t even know personally, much less what is in their hearts.

Tell me Lapey, what other teaching of the Church is of such debate as voting? If there are none, then something lacks in this ‘teaching’.

 

[Lapey]

Your comment only proves your stubborn bias.

Pot meet kettle…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is nothing confusing or controversial about this statement. If both candidates are equally pro-death…then one must find another option.

Yea, it’s easy to add and make it say something it does not. Read the article.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I thought you said that the Church does not teach excommunication as a viable option. You are right. I misread or misunderstoood.

 

[ProVobis]

How about playing in the present world; we cannot change the past, babies are continuing to die now. Why argue against the Church and Her leaders because of the past?

Uh, I think Roe, as well as Doe, ARE part of the present world. And FWIW Cicero, whose moral code was adopted by many Church fathers, condemned abortion before the Church did. As did the Mosaic law which condemned murder, adultery and by extension fornication. So it’s not only the Church whose principles are being scoffed at here.

Abortion has been around for thousands of years. I’m trying to do my part by supporting pregnant women in distress. I will not support the squandering of money used to support or attack political candidates or parties, who exploit us for political gain. After 40 years, enough is enough.

 

[Lapey]

Oh, we have already responded at length. If you continue to choose to ignore the arguments, which are based on a careful reading of the documents by the USCCB and Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, I cannot help you. Others who are more open-minded to what these documents actually say, as opposed as to what you want them to say according to your biases, will properly consider the arguments.

I’ll fix it for you, “…on a careful mis-reading of the documents…” There ya go…:thumbsup: