Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Ridgerunner]

I think some people like to come onto these forums to make sweeping denunciations of those Catholics who may have voted for Obama. How they can presume to know the motivations of each and every Catholic voter is anyone’s guess. I suspect that much of the fury stems from the fact that these votes didn’t go to the Republican party.

But see, you are here doing the very thing you are condemning others for doing (or what you think they are doing). In any event, I say you’re wrong in your judgment. A lot of people on here who opposed Obama are not Republicans at all; possibly even most of them.

Motivations in supporting evil politically do not change the objectively evil nature of the act. It is, of course, the duty of any Catholic to point out those actions that are objectively evil, and is a charity to those who do not know they are.

We also have a moral duty to actively oppose evil. It is not a moral choice to stand by and let evil happen when we have the means at hand to oppose it.

 

[gnjsdad]

That is a very significant observation, yet it fails to address the more sweeping “lament” that denounces public support for a “major political party”.

You’re right. Catholic public officials of the Democratic party who support “choice” in opposition to what they know their Church teaches do just as much to undermine the unity of the Church as the faculty who take sides against their own Bishop. I would think that goes without saying, but I should have made that point as well.

 

[Lucky7]

A lot of people on here who opposed Obama are not Republicans at all; possibly even most of them.

signing in…

 

[wynnejj]

Two questions…

1. Is there a transcript of the Papal Nuncio’s address at Notre Dame anywhere?
2. Can anybody point to any public speech by any other Catholic church official where it was intimated that Catholics should walk away from a political party because of a platform professing as basic principles belief in several intrinsic evils?

What strikes me is that I cannot recall anywhere among the more vocal church officials on behalf of Pro-Life causes any statement that suggests that Catholics should walk away from a “major political party”.

And with all the ways that spin could be put onto peoples’ statements by media sources, whether intended to be accurate or not, by using quoted phrases in sentences of the author’s construction and out of context of the larger message … well, it occurs to me that there might be a distinct possibility that the papal nuncio may not have actually been asking people not to publicly support a certain “major political party”.

I know that there have been church officials who have come out and flat out said that you simply can’t vote for Obama given his professed platform, but never have I heard any suggestion that Catholics should not publicly support the Democratic Party because of their professed platform. In fact, almost all church officials have gone out of their way to re-iterate that they would never tell one how to vote.

 

[gnjsdad]

But see, you are here doing the very thing you are condemning others for doing (or what you think they are doing).

I will take your point under consideration. Making hasty, rash judgements is sinful and uncharitable and if I have done so, I apologize.

Ridgerunner:

In any event, I say you’re wrong in your judgment. A lot of people on here who opposed Obama are not Republicans at all; possibly even most of them.

You must admit though, there was a lot of cheerleading for Romney, a man whose pro life bona fides I consider extremely questionable and a lot of venom directed at those who voted for Obama.

When the only realistic alternative to Obama is Romney, whose election promised to bring more war, economic exploitation, and yes, a continuation of abortion on demand and homosexual rights, how is is possible to condemn an ordinary Catholic who may have voted for Obama thinking his economic life would improve and suspecting that the Church’s social agenda would not be implemented?

Condemning “pro-choice” Catholic politicians is one thing. Condemning Catholic voters given the bleak alternatives is quite another.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You must admit though, there was a lot of cheerleading for Romney, a man whose pro life bona fides I consider extremely questionable and a lot of venom directed at those who voted for Obama.

When the only realistic alternative to Obama is Romney, whose election promised to bring more war, economic exploitation, and yes, a continuation of abortion on demand and homosexual rights, how is is possible to condemn an ordinary Catholic who may have voted for Obama thinking his economic life would improve and suspecting that the Church’s social agenda would not be implemented?

Condemning “pro-choice” Catholic politicians is one thing. Condemning Catholic voters given the bleak alternatives is quite another.

I think a lot of people who opposed Obama weren’t all that enthused with Romney himself, which may be the reason Romney lost the election. But he was the “not Obama” candidate. If one wanted to vote against the evils of abortion, homosexual marriage and the oppression of the Church, and do so in a way that had any chance of being effective, Romney was all there was.

I don’t think one can lay a factual foundation for the conclusions that Romney would have brought “more war”, “economic expoitation” or even a continuation of abortion on demand or homosexual “rights”. Nor did I ever see anybody, in the pre-election debates in here ever do so. Lots of people thought such things, but only because they thought such things.

Despite the fact that Obama, while in total control of the government, did absolutely nothing for anybody but the wealthy (remember “Cash for Clunkers”?) some undoubtedly did think he would improve their economic situation.

But even if they did believe that, against all reason, how does that trump the death of a million unborn children per year? It doesn’t, and we have been repeatedly told that from the Pope on down to my own bishop. That’s not “venom”. It’s telling the truth.

It’s certain there were people in here who told people they would be voting for evil in voting for Obama. But extolling Romney wholeheartedly? I saw little of it. In fact, I’m not sure I ever saw it at all.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I will take your point under consideration. Making hasty, rash judgements is sinful and uncharitable and if I have done so, I apologize.

You must admit though, there was a lot of cheerleading for Romney, a man whose pro life bona fides I consider extremely questionable and a lot of venom directed at those who voted for Obama.

When the only realistic alternative to Obama is Romney, whose election promised to bring more war, economic exploitation, and yes, a continuation of abortion on demand and homosexual rights, how is is possible to condemn an ordinary Catholic who may have voted for Obama thinking his economic life would improve and suspecting that the Church’s social agenda would not be implemented?

Condemning “pro-choice” Catholic politicians is one thing. Condemning Catholic voters given the bleak alternatives is quite another.

There is no comparison between Romney and Obama on pro life, religious freedom and marriage. You have no evidence Romney would of started a war, but for the sake of conversation economy and war have been said by Bishop Gracida to be lacking in proportionately to vote for a pro abortion candidate, similar to what Archbishop John J Myers has said

greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20121026/GPG010404/310260362/Bishop-urges-vote-against-candidates-who-support-abortion-gay-marriage?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Bishop Ricken said

“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.’ Intrinsicically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger. But what does this have to do with the election? Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal election platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.”

When a Catholics points out to another Catholic that voting for a pro abortion candidate is wrong, they are not doing out of a place hopefully of partisonship of genuinely not wanting hat Catholic to put their soul in jeopardy. They are trying to help Catholics not commit mortal sin

 

[Ridgerunner]

, but never have I heard any suggestion that Catholics should not publicly support the Democratic Party because of their professed platform.

Didn’t Cdl Burke’s “Party of Death” comment suggest it pretty strongly?

 

[Lucky7]

When the only realistic alternative to Obama is Romney, whose election promised to bring more war, economic exploitation, and yes, a continuation of abortion on demand and homosexual rights, how is is possible to condemn an ordinary Catholic who may have voted for Obama thinking his economic life would improve and suspecting that the Church’s social agenda would not be implemented?

Not a huge fan of Romney (and I agree with Ridgerunner that nothing you wrote here was necessarily fact about what he would/would not do), yet he was against the HHS mandate.

Where did you stand on the HHS mandate? Was this not an important enough issue?

 

[wynnejj]

Making hasty, rash judgements is sinful and uncharitable and if I have done so, I apologize. … Romney, whose election promised to bring more war, economic exploitation, and yes, a continuation of abortion on demand and homosexual rights, …

I’m sure Romney will be glad to accept your apologies.

 

[wynnejj]

Didn’t Cdl Burke’s “Party of Death” comment suggest it pretty strongly?

Yes, you’re right … that would fill the bill. So we have a papal nuncio & vatican “supreme court” judge who have made bold statements from outside of American jurisdiction.

Anybody know of an American Catholic church official who has come out and said that one should walk away from a major political party due to basic principles that profess intrinsic evils of serious proportions?

 

[Lucky7]

Yes, you’re right … that would fill the bill. So we have a papal nuncio & vatican “supreme court” judge who have made bold statements from outside of American jurisdiction.

Anybody know of an American Catholic church official who has come out and said that one should walk away from a major political party due to basic principles that profess intrinsic evils of serious proportions?

Didn’t abyssinia just post one/more than one?

 

[scipio337]

I will take your point under consideration. Making hasty, rash judgements is sinful and uncharitable and if I have done so, I apologize.

You must admit though, there was a lot of cheerleading for Romney, a man whose pro life bona fides I consider extremely questionable and a lot of venom directed at those who voted for Obama.

When the only realistic alternative to Obama is Romney, whose election promised to bring more war, economic exploitation, and yes, a continuation of abortion on demand and homosexual rights, how is is possible to condemn an ordinary Catholic who may have voted for Obama thinking his economic life would improve and suspecting that the Church’s social agenda would not be implemented?

Condemning “pro-choice” Catholic politicians is one thing. Condemning Catholic voters given the bleak alternatives is quite another.

Are you making the grand asssumption that their actions would have been otherwise, had a candidate with more “pro life bona fides” won the nomination?

We would have had the same lip service that Santorum, Gingrich, et al,

“…promised to bring more war, economic exploitation…”

Confirmation bias.

 

[wynnejj]

Didn’t abyssinia just post one/more than one?

Abyssinia does a great job in citing some great sources. And you are correct that American Catholic church officials were cited that spoke about walking away from political candidates for professed principles … major political candidates, yes … major political party, no mention.

 

[Lucky7]

Abyssinia does a great job in citing some great sources. And you are correct that American Catholic church officials were cited that spoke about walking away from political candidates for professed principles … major political candidates, yes … major political party, no mention.

I beg to differ:

*Bishop Ricken said

Quote:
“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.’ Intrinsicically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger. But what does this have to do with the election? **Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal election platform. **To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.” *

 

[Ridgerunner]

Abyssinia does a great job in citing some great sources. And you are correct that American Catholic church officials were cited that spoke about walking away from political candidates for professed principles … major political candidates, yes … major political party, no mention.

I don’t think we needed any bishop to tell us, for example, that the government of Pol Pot was evil. I don’t know that any bishop did. But it was plainly evil, and we didn’t need a bishop to tell us what our own eyes and ears told us.

When a major political party says, right in its platform, that it supports abortion on demand and homosexual (profanation of) marriage, do we really need a bishop to tell us that its ways are evil?

I was a Democrat party man all my life. Worked for it. Organized for it. Held office in it. I hate what it has become and what it has lost. But it isn’t sufficient for me to stay in support of it when it just plain announces that it supports intrinsic evils, just because no bishop has told me I can’t support it.

My wife was also a party leader at the state level. She gave a speech to committee members encouraging the welcoming of prolife candidates, and supporting them. She was told afterward that she shouldn’t ever say that again because it was “divisive”.

That was the end for both of us.

After I quit supporting the party, not all Dem politicians knew it, and some came to me for organizational support. (I was pretty good at that) I asked where they stood on abortion. Even those who were uneasy about abortion told me that the party would work to defeat them if they didn’t support the party line on it. I felt sorry for those men, but there was no way I was going to organize for them, and I told them that.

At some point, as I said, we have to believe our own eyes and ears. And at some point we need to act on it.

 

[wynnejj]

I beg to differ:

*Bishop Ricken said

Quote:
“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.’ Intrinsicically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger. But what does this have to do with the election? **Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal election platform. ***To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.”

I concede the point. This statement does rise to the level of taking the party platform to task and, places the Catholic voter in the context of being an accomplice in the act of abortion. But, I think that my point can be well taken … that it is hard and very unusual to find a highly placed American Catholic church official who will basically say that Catholics need to walk away from a given political party on a matter of basic principles that include intrinsic evils of grave proportions.

 

[wynnejj]

I don’t think we needed any bishop to tell us, for example, that the government of Pol Pot was evil. I don’t know that any bishop did. But it was plainly evil, and we didn’t need a bishop to tell us what our own eyes and ears told us.

We can extrapolate that hypothesis and simply say I don’t need any bishop to tell me anything that is right & wrong. Or, I firmly trust that when a bishop does not tell me that something is right & wrong, then the question is not a matter of morals and therefore, one can choose their own way with impunity. As a Catholic, when after 15 years of abortion policy I first learned that abortion was rampant to the tune of 1.5 million a year and I hadn’t got the memo, I didn’t need church bishops & priests to tell me that it is wrong to keep such rampant evil quiet and that such child abuse must not be covered up. One could say that I didn’t leave the church but, the church left me (actually, I never stopped attending Sunday Mass, but I did stop receiving the Holy Eucharist). No, I disagree with your hypothesis. I believe that bishops & priests have been grossly negligent in alerting the laity on their duty to treat this cancer. They have to come out and engage the enemy of the war on babies.

 

[Mickey]

I suspect that much of the fury stems from the fact that these votes didn’t go to the Republican party.

I think much of the displeasure stems from the fact that Obama’s agenda includes:

Abortion on demand
Infanticide
Euthanasia
Homosexual “marriage”
Funding of Planned Parenthood
Contraception mandate

 

[Ridgerunner]

We can extrapolate that hypothesis and simply say I don’t need any bishop to tell me anything that is right & wrong. Or, I firmly trust that when a bishop does not tell me that something is right & wrong, then the question is not a matter of morals and therefore, one can choose their own way with impunity. As a Catholic, when after 15 years of abortion policy I first learned that abortion was rampant to the tune of 1.5 million a year and I hadn’t got the memo, I didn’t need church bishops & priests to tell me that it is wrong to keep such rampant evil quiet and that such child abuse must not be covered up. One could say that I didn’t leave the church but, the church left me (actually, I never stopped attending Sunday Mass, but I did stop receiving the Holy Eucharist). No, I disagree with your hypothesis. I believe that bishops & priests have been grossly negligent in alerting the laity on their duty to treat this cancer. They have to come out and engage the enemy of the war on babies.

Never did I say that no priest or bishop has been blameworthy in the horror of abortion or in the blase attitude so many have to it, or to supporting its promoters, within the Church. I hold a radically different view from that.

But that’s not to say I am thereby granted a moral right to simply invent my own theology or moral disciplines.