Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Rence]

Indeed. Let us look at those issues which fly in the face of all Christians:

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

All these issues are part of the Democratic party platform and championed by Obama.

Indeed. Let’s look at what most Americans are worried about:

Providing for themselves, as well as their for their children, their elderly, their sick and their disabled, the ability to:

pay their bills
afford healthcare without losing their homes and everything else
keep a roof over their, and their loved ones’, head
be able to feed themselves and their families
provide heat and electricity in their homes

What you’ve listed is important. But what I’ve listed is important too because there’s not much else if you can’t take care of your family and loved ones, especially the very young, very old, sick and disabled.

 

[Rence]

Yes…just a few.

(but I am wondering why you refer to your Church’s teaching as “entirely subjective”)?
I figured that one of the Obama-Catholics would do it in an attempt to find something to justify their vote.

I was right.

Democrat, Republican, or Independent, we don’t need a reason to justifiy our vote. All we need to do is read the the Church documents, weigh ALL the issues listed carefully, and vote with the interests of the citizens of this nation in mind. We all have a vote, and yes, we all own that vote. No one needs to be telling another person how to vote. Do what you want with yours, others are sure to do what I want with theirs. That’s why you have your own, and everyone else has their own. We don’t vote as a family, as a couple, as a group, or any other way.

 

[Mickey]

But what I’ve listed is important too .

But not proportionate.

 

[Mickey]

No one needs to be telling another person how to vote.

Of course not. The Church tells us about intrinsic evil…and I vote according to my conscience.

 

[Rence]

But not proportionate.

Yes they are proportionate.

 

[Rence]

Of course not. The Church tells us about intrinsic evil…and I vote according to my conscience.

As well you should. Just like everyone else

 

[JMJSHJ]

And you believe the average voter, assuming he/she even knows what a party platform is, let alone knows what’s in it, bases their vote on a platform which even its drafters feel free to ignore? Just like the national GOP ticket ignores its platform.

Are you suggesting that Catholics are too dumb to read what a party platform is? That Catholic voters are incapable of doing research on what a platform is.

The platform is what the party stands for and when the platform calls for intrinsic evils that as sincere, faithful Catholics we are required to oppose, then you can’t say that the party is separate from the platform. I can’t believe I have to say this.

Perhaps we are living in apoclyptic times and seeing the apostasy of faith?

 

[wynnejj]

What the Papal Nuncio actually said

I was suspicious about the report by the National Catholic Register (NCR), since it did not directly quote the entire sentence whose meaning has been the central point of discussion on this thread. I do not think that the NCR intentionally would misrepresent views, but precise words do matter.

Thank you for locating this material. I too thought there might be some nuanced interpretation that may not get it entirely right. And with a statement like this, I was wondering why some of the more vocal Pro-Life voices among American church officials were not saying similar things … that is, it’s that major political party, stupid.

I love many pro-life websites, but I’m often perturbed by the nuanced interpretations of words taken out of context without the links to the completed speech.

On an “other” matter, I think your view of “other morally grave reasons” is also out of context with Faithful Citizenship …

That is also exactly what the USCCB document Faithful Citizenship says:

“35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.”

(Again, note that "“other morally grave reasons” contains the word “other” – obviously other than abortion etc.)

Which is preceded by …

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is
   so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the
   proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate
   who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the
   voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty
   of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a
   candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness
   to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

I think “other” means “intrinsic evils” of which “abortion and racism” are examples. Many Pro-Life advocates get all bent out of shape with the “abortion and racism” because it brought “racism” into the political dialogue. However, I think it is a fortunate juxtaposition because … let’s face it … racism is as racism does. Fighting racism while at the same time helping them self-administer “ethnic cleansing” in the name of a “war on poverty” by waging a “war on babies” … well, that’s in keeping with a “proportionate reasoning” mind {???}

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes they are proportionate.

Especially when the actual record on abortion (as opposed to empty promises) of the opposing party is so dismal, making its alleged pro-life stance fall out of the equation:

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!

 

[_Abyssinia]

Indeed. Let’s look at what most Americans are worried about:

Providing for themselves, as well as their for their children, their elderly, their sick and their disabled, the ability to:

pay their bills
afford healthcare without losing their homes and everything else
keep a roof over their, and their loved ones’, head
be able to feed themselves and their families
provide heat and electricity in their homes

What you’ve listed is important. But what I’ve listed is important too because there’s not much else if you can’t take care of your family and loved ones, especially the very young, very old, sick and disabled.

Neither the economy or health care are proportionate reasons singularly or in combination to vote for a pro abortion candidate says Archbishop John J Myers

 

[JMJSHJ]

Especially when the actual record on abortion (as opposed to empty promises) of the opposing party is so dismal, making its alleged pro-life stance fall out of the equation:

The fact contradict what you cling to be true. See Ridgerunner’s posts about what the Republican party has done in recent memory versus what the Obama Administration has done:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=726960&page=23

Posts 334 to 342

 

[estesbob]

Especially when the actual record on abortion (as opposed to empty promises) of the opposing party is so dismal, making its alleged pro-life stance fall out of the equation:

So its OK to. support evil if you believe those who oppose evil aren’t effective enough in ending it?

 

[_Abyssinia]

The fact contradict what you cling to be true. See Ridgerunner’s posts about what the Republican party has done in recent memory versus what the Obama Administration has done:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=726960&page=23

Posts 334 to 342

Judges appointed by republican presidents are far more likely to uphold pro life regulations. Republican legislators are more likely to enact regulations of abortion. Republican executive branch administrators and officials are more likely to regulate rather than subsidise abortion
over democrats

 

[Rence]

Neither the economy or health care are proportionate reasons singularly or in combination to vote for a pro abortion candidate says Archbishop John J Myers

Yes, they are. They are pertinent for those suffering with lack of medical care, and lack of means to support themselves for reasons not in their control. There is more to life than being born.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Yes, they are. They are pertinent for those suffering with lack of medical care, and lack of means to support themselves for reasons not in their control. There is more to life than being born.

Are you denying the Archbishops’ authority? He said the economy and health care are not proportionate reasons. Bishop Gracida said similar

Point me to a quote by a Bishop or Priest who says specifically health care or the economy are proportinate reasons singularly or in combination to vote for a pro abortion candidate

 

[Rence]

Are you denying the Archbishops’ authority? He said the economy and health care are not proportionate reasons. Bishop Gracida says similar

Point me to a quote by a Bishop or Priest who says specifically health care or the economy are proportinate reasons singularly or in combination to vote for a pro abortion candidate

One Bishop doesn’t speak for the entire Church, and I believe Al pointed you to enough quotes, even by the Bishop, to support the fact that one issue doesn’t dictate to alllllllllllll Catholics in the world to vote Republican on pain of hellfire and damnation

 

[_Abyssinia]

One Bishop doesn’t speak for the entire Church, and I believe Al pointed you to enough quotes, even by the Bishop, to support the fact that one issue doesn’t dictate to alllllllllllll Catholics in the world to vote Republican on pain of hellfire and damnation

Speaks volumes that you can not provide what I requested

Excuses, excuses. When you do not agree with a Bishop you say he doesn’t for the entire Church. A Bishop does have authority to speak for the Church, but it is not just Archbishop John J Myers saying what he did on proportionate reasons. Bishop Gracida, Fr Stephen F Torraco, Bishop Robert J Carlson, Bishop Joseph A Galante etc say similar

Do you believe they all do not speak for the Church?

None of the quotes provided by Al Moritz

• Say what proportionate reasons are
• Bishops have authority to speak for the Church and they have said what proportionate reasons are and are not. Pope Benedict has said the non negotiables for principal concern for Christians in politics is protection from conception to natural death, protection and preservation of marriage between 1 woman and 1 man and preserving the right for parents to educate their children. Nowhere on the list is a non negotiable listed as health care or the economy. Nowhere in the Pope’s speeches or documents does it say economy or health care are proportionate to vote for a pro abortion candidate

 

[estesbob]

One Bishop doesn’t speak for the entire Church, and I believe Al pointed you to enough quotes, even by the Bishop, to support the fact that one issue doesn’t dictate to alllllllllllll Catholics in the world to vote Republican on pain of hellfire and damnation

Then you should be able to find some member of the magestrium who supports your view?

 

[Rence]

Excuses, excuses. When you do not agree with a Bishop it is he doesn’t for the entire Church. A Bishop does have authority to speak for the Church

None of the quotes provided by you or Al Moritz

• Say what proportionate reasons are
• Bishops have authority to speak for the Church and they have said what proportionate reasons are and are not. Pope Benedict has said the non negotiables for principal concern for Christians in politics is protection from conception to natural death, protection and preservation of marriage between 1 woman and 1 man and preserving the right for parents to educate their children. Nowhere on the list is a non negotiable listed as health care or the economy

Excuses Exuses. You also don’t believe a Bishop speaks for the Church when he says something contrary to your conservative views. It goes both ways.

The Bishops did DID say that Catholics are NOT one issue voters and gave a LIST of topics to consider when voting. Furthermore they said that one should not discount a candidate for one reason, thus ignoring all the other topics. And Pope Benedict didn’t list “Five non-Negotiables”. However part of protection from conception to natural death includes the ability to feed, clothe, house and provide healthcare to those who need it. There is more to life than just bein born and peole are important after they are born as well. Vote the way your concience dictates as it’s the only way you should. Likewise, I will do the same.

 

[Rence]

Then you should be able to find some member of the magestrium who supports your view?

Al already posted that. In addition, you have the Bishop’s guide to help you work through your questions.