Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Mickey]

A modern Athanasius would be most welcome!

Indeed.

It is also often reported that St Nicholas of Myra punched Arius in the nose (or slapped him in the face) at the Council of Nicea.

 

[gnjsdad]

*Proportionate reasons or ‘other morally grave reasons’ ) to vote for a pro-choice candidate

*) wording USCCB guide

I have morally grave reasons to vote for a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate only if I can trust that s/he is serious about his/her stance and that in practice, not just in theory, s/he will (be able to) do something about it. From past evidence I have no reason to trust the Republican Party on much, and certainly not on the issue of abortion, at least not on the federal level.

Republican-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing:

Link:
gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm

Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
**land. **It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.

Indeed, in Casey a Supreme Court with eight out of nine Republican-appointed justices has in effect re-affirmed Roe V. Wade. So if a Supreme Court with eight Republican-appointed justices does not overturn Wade, on what rational grounds should I hope that the next few conservative appointments will change that? Give me a break, don’t be fooled folks!

Inaction and lying by pro-life politicians (and inaction by appointed Supreme Court justices) alone could be morally grave reasons, and proportionate reasons, enough to neutralize the theoretically morally grave reasons of not voting for a pro-choice candidate, especially when you do not vote for that candidate because of the pro-choice stance (only the ‘because of’ would be formal cooperation with evil, c.f. Cardinal Ratzinger, USCCB).

Yet then there can also be positive morally grave reasons, and proportionate reasons, to vote for a pro-choice candidate, when you do not vote for that candidate because of the pro-choice stance.

For example, if you are convinced that the policies of the pro-choice candidate will result in less economic downward pressure on the middle class, and thus in less economic reasons for women to have abortions, then it is a reasonable assumption that in practical terms (that is what it has to be all about, not theoretical blabber) the abortion rate will actually decrease, relative to the policies of the alleged pro-life candidate who otherwise will not do, or will not be able to do, anything substantial about the abortion situation directly.

If on top of that the other social policies of the pro-choice candidate are also judged to be considered better and even life-saving, and more in line with Catholic teaching, than the social policies of the alleged pro-life candidate, and/or if the pro-choice candidate is less of a warmonger than the pro-life candidate, then the issue of sufficient other grave moral reasons, or proportionate reasons, becomes a no-brainer for me, and for many other Catholics who sincerely strive to be in line with Catholic teaching.

In summary, both the neutralizing and the positive morally grave reasons combined are more than enough for me to overcome the mere theoretical promise by the GOP to do enough about abortion, a theoretical promise that in practice has failed miserably. If I had good reasons to believe that on the legislative front anything substantial about abortion in this country (especially on the federal level) would happen by voting GOP, this would change things. But I have no such reasons, or at the very least, no sufficient reasons, to believe that.

Don’t forget: the moral premise that you should vote for a pro-life candidate must obviously be based on the assumption that s/he will in reality act on his/her stance in a sufficient fashion. If a candidate merely says to be pro-life, that in itself is not a sufficient moral reason to vote for that candidate. You have to look at the issues practically, and not from the naive standpoint of listening to some magical words by some political Pied Pipers and then running after them. After all, we are followers of Jesus Christ, not followers of The Pied Piper. Catholics are not required to leave their brains outside the voting booth. In fact, they are morally obliged not to do so.

This is the most significant post in this thread, IMO. Thank you for posting.

Things are not as simple as some here, whose message is vote Republican, would have us believe.

 

[Faithdancer]

Exactly! But sadly, there are some who are so loyal to the (D) party…it would not matter if the warning was spoken by the Pope himself.

Essentially, we can accept that it is spoken by the Pope himself, since a papal nuncio only speaks under the direct authority and approval of the Holy See.

Bringing up an old quote from Cardinal Ratzinger is a straw man tactic. I doubt that the opinion of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger suddenly changed when he became pope. Perhaps he had too much optimism that Catholics would use their heads and vote against intrinsic evil because they understand that it is intrinsic evil, and now he sees that more stern reminders are necessary because a large number of Catholics are delusional, if not downright obstinate. Even if he has become more “hard line” on the issue of voting for pro-abortion candidates, this would also be an expected response to an increasing danger, the danger presented by the fifth column of “cafeteria Catholics” in the Church who aid and abet the source of secularism, materialism and moral relativism and gnaw at the moral fabric of the Church from within.

 

[scipio337]

This is the most significant post in this thread, IMO. Thank you for posting.

Things are not as simple as some here, whose message is vote Republican, would have us believe.

Yes, to one willing to engage in cognitive dissonance, the “proportionate reasons” becomes subjective at best, or entirely arbitrary.

“I support funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, that’s proportionate!”

“Romney declared war on Big Bird™, that’s proportionate!”

“Only 1 out of every ten Republican drafted pro-life laws are passed over Democratic opposition in the legislature, or confirmed by SCOTUS (while Democratic appointed Justices unanimously vote against), therefore, Republican’s can’t be trusted to be pro-life, and that’s proportionate!”

The one thing this election taught me is that some people will always justify their actions, no matter what the Church says.

If people could vote for this presidential candidate, who openly supports 3 intrinsic evils, and has challenged the conscience of the Church and Church run institutions, they will continue to vote that way, regardless of what the Bishops (not an official USCCB release!), or the Pope (he said ‘proportionate’, see!) will say.

You could have a candidate stand on the steps of The Capitol, burn the Pope in effigy, while desecrating a crucifix, and some would still claim “But he’s really going to help the poor!!”

Christ have mercy on us all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is the most significant post in this thread, IMO. Thank you for posting.

Things are not as simple as some here, whose message is vote Republican, would have us believe.

We have seen all of this before and, as you know, it has been discounted many times.
Surprised somehow that Roberts says Roe is “the law of the land”? How could he say otherwise, since it is? That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t change it if he could get a majority to do so.

The Roe court sat during the “Rockefeller Republican” (i.e. liberal) period of the Repub party. Roe came out of judicial never-never land, and could not be anticipated by those who appointed them.

Kennedy, one must admit, is not a prolife justice, though a Repub and a Catholic. Still, it must be admitted that the ONLY justices who voted to uphold bans on partial birth abortion were Repub Catholic justices. Not a single Dem appointed justice voted to uphold them. Not one.

Are all Repubs predictably prolife? No. Are all Dems predictably abortion supporters? Pretty much. Is abortion in the Dem platform? Yes. Is respect for life in the Repub platform? Yes.

Virtually no Democrats on the national level are rated as prolife. Most Repubs are.

At some point, the obvious has to be accepted. The Democrats are pro-abortion almost to a man. The Repubs are not. The Dems do not have a significant prolife constituency whose membership will hold them responsible for doing nothing against abortion. The Repubs definitely do.

I’m not a Repub, by the way. Never have been. Was a Democrat all my life and held office in the party. But it left me when abortion on demand became its #1 cause.

And please do not imagine that the Dems do anything to aid women contemplating abortion in any way other than to encourage them to have abortions. They could have done anything they wanted in the first two years of the Obama administration to help pregnant women, but did nothing at all.

 

[Mickey]

Essentially, we can accept that it is spoken by the Pope himself, since a papal nuncio only speaks under the direct authority and approval of the Holy See.

Agreed.

 

[scipio337]

We have seen all of this before and, as you know, it has been discounted many times.
Surprised somehow that Roberts says Roe is “the law of the land”? How could he say otherwise, since it is? That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t change it if he could get a majority to do so.

The Roe court sat during the “Rockefeller Republican” (i.e. liberal) period of the Repub party. Roe came out of judicial never-never land, and could not be anticipated by those who appointed them.

Kennedy, one must admit, is not a prolife justice, though a Repub and a Catholic. Still, it must be admitted that the ONLY justices who voted to uphold bans on partial birth abortion were Repub Catholic justices. Not a single Dem appointed justice voted to uphold them. Not one.

Are all Repubs predictably prolife? No. Are all Dems predictably abortion supporters? Pretty much. Is abortion in the Dem platform? Yes. Is respect for life in the Repub platform? Yes.

Virtually no Democrats on the national level are rated as prolife. Most Repubs are.

At some point, the obvious has to be accepted. The Democrats are pro-abortion almost to a man. The Repubs are not. The Dems do not have a significant prolife constituency whose membership will hold them responsible for doing nothing against abortion. The Repubs definitely do.

I’m not a Repub, by the way. Never have been. Was a Democrat all my life and held office in the party. But it left me when abortion on demand became its #1 cause.

And please do not imagine that the Dems do anything to aid women contemplating abortion in any way other than to encourage them to have abortions. They could have done anything they wanted in the first two years of the Obama administration to help pregnant women, but did nothing at all.

This is the most significant post in this thread, IMO. Thank you for posting.

Things are not as simple as some here, whose message is “do as you will”, would have us believe.

 

[iloveangels]

This is the most significant post in this thread, IMO. Thank you for posting.

Things are not as simple as some here, whose message is “do as you will”, would have us believe.

Politics. That’s all the church is to some people.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think one of the dangers is that by simply saying vote for this guy or that woman releases you from the need to perform other civic duties. Besides voting takes you all of about 5 minutes once you get a ballot. A whole 5 minutes every two years? When everyday one can himself perform some function furthering pro-life causes. The politicians certainly don’t do it but sure do know how to exploit the system for their political gain.

Cicero said to choose the least of evils. He didn’t specifically say at the ballot box either.

Keep the faith.

I was lucky enough to participate in the delivery of 3 babies this past year, as an EMT. I just got home from taking the state paramedic test. Now I’ll take the lead on my truck.

 

[Faithdancer]

This is the most significant post in this thread, IMO. Thank you for posting.

Things are not as simple as some here, whose message is “do as you will”, would have us believe.

Clever comeback reference to an earlier “post” there, Scipio, love it. I agree, ridgerunner’s post was very well said.

And yes indeed, “do as you will…” wasn’t that the motto, more or less, of Anton Lavey, the author of the Satanic “bible?”

 

[Faithdancer]

Peace be unto you.

You seem like a good man. I wish you the best in your pursuit as you strive to teach those who may have fallen away. Let the Holy Spirit be your guide.

St Paul says it nicely:

I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.Great choice of Scripture Mickey- most apropos!

Yes…those “itching ears…” yearning to hear what most appeals to their hedonism, self-indulgence, temporal/material concerns, and overall comfort, including being able to seem “informed” and “politically correct.”

A murrain upon the heterodox!
2 Tim Ch 4

 

[Faithdancer]

Peace be unto you.

You seem like a good man. I wish you the best in your pursuit as you strive to teach those who may have fallen away. Let the Holy Spirit be your guide.

St Paul says it nicely:

I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober.
2 Tim Ch 4

Great choice of Scripture, Mickey- very apropos.

Yes…those “itching ears…” yearning to hear the fables which most appeal to their hedonism, self-indulgence, temporal/material concerns, and overall comfort, including being able to seem “informed” and “politically correct.”

A murrain upon those who gnaw from within upon the moral fabric of the Church!

 

[gnjsdad]

The one thing this election taught me is that some people will always justify their actions, no matter what the Church says.

If people could vote for this presidential candidate, who openly supports 3 intrinsic evils, and has challenged the conscience of the Church and Church run institutions, they will continue to vote that way, regardless of what the Bishops (not an official USCCB release!), or the Pope (he said ‘proportionate’, see!) will say.

When the alternative is a candidate who promises only lip service on pro life issues, and further, actually solicits funding from anti-life sources, people I think can be forgiven for not taking the “pro life” candidate seriously and voting the other way. But, that’s only my opinion. If you actually believe Romney would have taken serious measures to end legal abortion and make that the major goal of his presidency, well, what can I say?

 

[gnjsdad]

Clever comeback reference to an earlier “post” there, Scipio, love it.

He does seem to like my prose style. I’m flattered.

 

[Mickey]

people I think can be forgiven for not taking the “pro life” candidate seriously and voting the other way.

We are called to forgive…70 times 7.

But voting the other way (BO) was a vote for a known entity…an entity that makes no apology in his support for abortion on demand…infanticide…gay “marriage”…funding of Planned Parenthood…etc., etc.

There really is no excuse for a Christian voting for this man.

 

[NeedsMercy]

If you say so. You want to try it again?

Nope. I thought about it and decided there is just too much in-fighting between us Catholics on this and similar posts already.

 

[JMJSHJ]

When the alternative is a candidate who promises only lip service on pro life issues, and further, actually solicits funding from anti-life sources, people I think can be forgiven for not taking the “pro life” candidate seriously and voting the other way. But, that’s only my opinion. If you actually believe Romney would have taken serious measures to end legal abortion and make that the major goal of his presidency, well, what can I say?

How about a principled vote then? Don’t believe that Romney wasn’t serious about Pro-Life measures? Fine don’t vote for him. Where is the law that says then you have to vote for Obama?

 

[wynnejj]

When the alternative is a candidate who promises only lip service on pro life issues, and further, actually solicits funding from anti-life sources, people I think can be forgiven for not taking the “pro life” candidate seriously and voting the other way. But, that’s only my opinion. If you actually believe Romney would have taken serious measures to end legal abortion and make that the major goal of his presidency, well, what can I say?

When the alternative is a Catholic Church who promises only lip service on Pro-Life issues, and further, actually solicits government funding from anti-life sources, people I think can be forgiven for not taking the “pro-life” Catholic Church seriously and walking away from its teachings. But, that’s only my opinion (or maybe the Papal Nuncio’s too). If you actually believe Catholics would have taken serious measures to end legal abortion and make that the major goal of the present, well, what can I say? (I like your prose, too.)

 

[Santi2]

… there is just too much in-fighting between us Catholics on this and similar posts already.

Just as the Papal Nuncio stated: “Catholic division” .

 

[wynnejj]

Waffles anyone? That is what the “proportionate reason” argument has become? Your guys waffled on intrinsic evil and don’t conform to my view of common goods, so I’m going for the common goods and vote for those elements of society with integrity and never waffle on intrinsic evil. Hear! Hear! for Integrity!