Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samson01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
I didn’t see on the ballot where I was asked to vote on the platform or any other side matters discussed at the national conventions.
Click to expand...
So if a person votes for the marijuana party, can they intelligently say that they didn’t know or don’t support the legalization of marijuana?

Please don’t dumb down the electorate.
 
ProVobis said:
I didn’t see on the ballot where I was asked to vote on the platform or any other side matters discussed at the national conventions.
Click to expand...
A party’s political platform sets out their core values, but more specifically their concrete goals for the upcoming term. As a body, they stand, as members of that party, for certain proposals. These are not “side issues.” They are central issues.

In some years party platforms are broader than in other years. Increasingly I have seen in my adult life the Democratic Party in particular becoming committed to The Left among their membership, whereas the Republicans are sitll, in their platform, moderate by comparison. (The most Conservative elements of the RP do not dominate, is what I mean.)

So if one identifies with the contemporary Democratic Party one will be identifying with many core values which directly oppose central, priority Catholic doctrine.

Now, individual politicians are not bound by every goal of a party’s platform. However, the party “machine’s” support of that candidate (with voiced and concrete enthusiasm) will very much depend on how conformed that candidate is to the party’s current platform. Dare to be a maverick, and you will be marginalized, and your chances of election affected.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
A party’s political platform sets out their core values, but more specifically their concrete goals for the upcoming term. As a body, they stand, as members of that party, for certain proposals. These are not “side issues.” They are central issues.

In some years party platforms are broader than in other years. Increasingly I have seen in my adult life the Democratic Party in particular becoming committed to The Left among their membership, whereas the Republicans are sitll, in their platform, moderate by comparison. (The most Conservative elements of the RP do not dominate, is what I mean.)

So if one identifies with the contemporary Democratic Party one will be identifying with many core values which directly oppose central, priority Catholic doctrine.

Now, individual politicians are not bound by every goal of a party’s platform. However, the party “machine’s” support of that candidate (with voiced and concrete enthusiasm) will very much depend on how conformed that candidate is to the party’s current platform. Dare to be a maverick, and you will be marginalized, and your chances of election affected.
Click to expand...
Besides the party platform which tells us about the agenda. We can see the fruit of the platform agenda by looking at the voting of Democrat VS Republican representatives. Consistently over at least the past 30 years, every time there’s a vote on a law that would further an intrinsic evil, the Democrats as a block vote for it and the Republicans as a block vote against. And every time there’s an initiative to counter or limit an intrinsic evil, the Republicans as a block vote for it, and the Democrats as a block vote against it.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Abortion has been declared by the Church to be one of the most serious sins in society. You do not weigh it up with other issues like the economy and health care, those issues are prudentual judgement, abortion is an intrinsic evil. Without basic respect for life you can not have a just society. Respect for the sancity of life is the foundation of Catholic social teaching so voting pro life does not make you a mere single issue voter, you are voting for upholding the foundation of Catholic social teaching. Requiring that candidates acknowledge the sancity of life from conception does not make you a single issue voter, it means that you believe that life can not be compromised
Click to expand...
All of this is true. Yet the question must be asked: Why don’t the Bishops pressure the Republican Party to act more forcefully on these principles? The Republicans have conclusively demonstrated that, when push comes to shove, something else will ALWAYS be more important than ending legal abortion, no matter how much (around election time) they say they want to do so. This HAS to be a factor in ordinary Catholics’ voting decision, after nearly 40 years of Republican promises.
 
gnjsdad said:
All of this is true. Yet the question must be asked: Why don’t the Bishops pressure the Republican Party to act more forcefully on these principles? The Republicans have conclusively demonstrated that, when push comes to shove, something else will ALWAYS be more important than ending legal abortion, no matter how much (around election time) they say they want to do so. This HAS to be a factor in ordinary Catholics’ voting decision, after nearly 40 years of Republican promises.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn’t see this…
livingwordunity said:
Besides the party platform which tells us about the agenda. We can see the fruit of the platform agenda by looking at the voting of Democrat VS Republican representatives. Consistently over at least the past 30 years, every time there’s a vote on a law that would further an intrinsic evil, the Democrats as a block vote for it and the Republicans as a block vote against. And every time there’s an initiative to counter or limit an intrinsic evil, the Republicans as a block vote for it, and the Democrats as a block vote against it.
Click to expand...
Republicans have done all they can do to fight intrinsic evils. It’s the Democrats that have been the problem since they have the upper hand with control of 98% of the media, 50 years of control over public education from K all the way through college, and control over the worker’s unions which is basically an extortion racket that funnels union dues to them.
 
gnjsdad said:
All of this is true. Yet the question must be asked: Why don’t the Bishops pressure the Republican Party to act more forcefully on these principles? The Republicans have conclusively demonstrated that, when push comes to shove, something else will ALWAYS be more important than ending legal abortion, no matter how much (around election time) they say they want to do so. This HAS to be a factor in ordinary Catholics’ voting decision, after nearly 40 years of Republican promises.
Click to expand...
Clinton and Obama appointed 4 justices whose background favours a pro abortion view. Reagan, George H Bush and George W Bush appointed 4 Supreme Court justices who made decisions that support a pro life view

Democrats should be pressured, they are the ones in the abortion industry’s pocket. DNC had the Planned Parenthood and NARAL president give speeches. Democrat platform says

democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs
Click to expand...
Democrat platform is pro gay marriage

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

Without republicans there would not be a single abortion restriction law passed in any state. 80 were passed last year, over 39 this year
 
JMJSHJ said:
So if a person votes for the marijuana party, can they intelligently say that they didn’t know or don’t support the legalization of marijuana?

Please don’t dumb down the electorate.
Click to expand...
Fair point. But an intelligent person should have also known that Ron Paul was pro-life even though he was the best Libertarian candidate in 1988. The Libertarian platform is, as most know, pro-choice and perhaps in some ways even more so than the Democratic platform.
 
_Abyssinia said:
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

Without republicans there would not be a single abortion restriction law passed in any state. 80 were passed last year, over 39 this year
Click to expand...
You’re mixing apples and oranges here. Where the tendency of SCOTUS is to allow freedoms, the states are better empowered to impose restrictions and penalties if in those states the “freedoms” are unworkable or abused.
 
livingwordunity said:
Republicans have done all they can do to fight intrinsic evils.
Click to expand...
Really? Better check up on the Nixon administration under whose watch Roe vs Wade became law and rape and interracial abortions were encouraged. We have these on tape.

And this after Reagan signed into law a pro-abortion bill and Eisenhower became co-sponsor of Planned Parenthood WHILE ABORTION WAS STILL ILLEGAL.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Do you believe life beings at conception and those conceived deserve equal protection as the mother? Young, old, sick and disabled need equal protection to that of the unborn

Point me to a single document which says proportionate reasons are health care and the economy singularly or in combination. You can not, no such statement is made in any Catholic document.

How anything be more important than stopping 1 million plus human beings being killed annually? This is a human rights issue. If there was 1 million plus murders on the street and the candidates you voted for had policies that were proven to allow this murder to continue, would you continue voting for these candidates?

Those who are born already deserve equal chance and opportunity as those yet to be born, those who are born should not be given more consideration than those yet to be born
Click to expand...
At this point, we are simply going around in circles. You ask me questions, I answer them, you don’t like the answer, so you ask again. Endless loop. I’m sorry, but my answers are not going to change just because you keep asking the same questions of me. There is nothing coming from the Vatican that says Catholics must discount and disregard the other issues in favor of one or two issues. There is none of that business from the Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship either. These are demands made of some Catholics from other Catholics, not the heirarchy of the Church.

Here are the answers to your questions…yet again. I know you do not like my answers, and you don’t agree with them, but they are MY ANSWERS:
And Rence says…yet again: The Church doesn’t dictate via exact script what Catholics are to do about many things. For example, using NFP for ‘grave’ or ‘serious’ reason is not scripted either. Everyone with a conscience knows that providing for those in need, particularly the young, the old, the sick and the disabled, is a huge component of protection of life and a major priorty, which puts the economy and healtcare front and center. The Church lists topics to consider when voting and says we are not one issue voters. That speaks volumes about what one should do and it’s as plain as day: consider all the issues when voting, and we are not one-issue voters. If we are not one issue voters, then candidates are not disqualified based on one issue all other factors considered.
Click to expand...
there is more to life than just being born. Society’s responsibility doesn’t just end with birth. There is a responsibility to provide for those who cannot otherwise provide for themselves. Getting them through birth doesn’t suffice. It’s only the beginning.
Click to expand...
 
_Abyssinia said:
If there was 1 million plus murders on the street and the candidates you voted for had policies that were proven to allow this murder to continue, would you continue voting for these candidates?
Click to expand...
And there is no candidate that has policies that were proven to allow murder on the street to continue. So that’s a question that only gets the previous sentence as an answer.
 
Rence said:
At this point, we are simply going around in circles. You ask me questions, I answer them, you don’t like the answer, so you ask again. Endless loop. I’m sorry, but my answers are not going to change just because you keep asking the same questions of me. There is nothing coming from the Vatican that says Catholics must discount and disregard the other issues in favor of one or two issues. There is none of that business from the Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship either. These are demands made of some Catholics from other Catholics, not the heirarchy of the Church.

Here are the answers to your questions…yet again. I know you do not like my answers, and you don’t agree with them, but they are MY ANSWERS:
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=728672
Dear friend,
Click to expand...
Protecting innocent human life is the most sacred of all social justice concerns. No issue can justify supporting the taking of innocent human life. A Catholic with a fully and properly formed conscience will vote according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If not, then his or her conscience either is not really properly formed—or he or she is arrogantly defying the teaching authority of the Church and sins grievously.
Click to expand...
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Click to expand...
We must remember this post as well.
 
JMJSHJ said:
What some people still don’t understand about the Papal nuncio’s statement is that supporting the platform is supporting the party. To say otherwise is wrong.
Click to expand...
Supporting a party doesn’t mean one is in agreement with the whole platform. There will always be some things one likes and some things that one doesn’t like about both, or all, of the party/platforms. So to say that if one supports a party/platform, they support the whole platform, is also wrong.
 
livingwordunity said:
Jump through hoops for you just so you can tell me you don’t accept my sources? No thanks. But I have a question for you. Did you participate in the USCCB’s Fortnight for Freedom?
Click to expand...
But aren’t you doing the very same thing to me? The only difference is, Al as already provided the documents a few times on this very thread. In addition, you have the Bishops’ guide at your disposal. Why is it okay for you to insist on documents that have already been cited, but you can’t provide sources to answer NeedsMercy.
 
JMJSHJ said:
So if a person votes for the marijuana party, can they intelligently say that they didn’t know or don’t support the legalization of marijuana?

Please don’t dumb down the electorate.
Click to expand...
There is no marijuana party. If there was a marijuana party, then the question would be relevent.
 
gnjsdad said:
All of this is true. Yet the question must be asked: Why don’t the Bishops pressure the Republican Party to act more forcefully on these principles? The Republicans have conclusively demonstrated that, when push comes to shove, something else will ALWAYS be more important than ending legal abortion, no matter how much (around election time) they say they want to do so. This HAS to be a factor in ordinary Catholics’ voting decision, after nearly 40 years of Republican promises.
Click to expand...
Thank you!! 👍
 
Rence said:
And there is no candidate that has policies that were proven to allow murder on the street to continue. So that’s a question that only gets the previous sentence as an answer.
Click to expand...
No, but there are candidates whose policies allow 1 million plus abortions in clinics. Is it that abortion is behind closed doors and that if there were 1 million murders in the street you would be faced with more of the direct reality of those deaths?

You think it is acceptable to vote for a pro abortion candidate but I doubt you would vote for a candidate whose policies supported deaths in any other area of society
 
Rence said:
Supporting a party doesn’t mean one is in agreement with the whole platform. There will always be some things one likes and some things that one doesn’t like about both, or all, of the party/platforms. So to say that if one supports a party/platform, they support the whole platform, is also wrong.
Click to expand...
That is true that supporting a party doesn’t mean one is in agreement with the whole platform but when its major platform issue like what abortion is with regard to the Democratic party its not something that can be ignored. Watching or even hearing about the DNC convention this year abortion was a major discussion point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top