Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[wynnejj]

Shut my mouth and call me “fair and balanced”, but I do believe the Papal Nuncio may also be charged with “biased” interpretation …

In this exhortation the Pope encourages the lay people to be mindful of their crucial role in temporal affairs as disciples of Christ rather than as some element of a political or secular ideology that bases its platform on the indecipherable formula established on the ambiguous foundation that unsuccessfully relies on the cure of social justice …

I totally agree with the statement’s viewpoint but, I do believe that from the “rather than …” point, he is making his own comments that have no basis in the document.

Check it out for yourself …
Christisfidelis Laici

Now the only question is whether the Papal Nuncio is interjecting his opinions or that of Pope Benedicit XVI as how the document relates to the current situation in the USA.

Can you find any opinion expressed in Pope John Paul II’s document that suggests an observation of the misuse of the “social justice cure”?

 

[RobbyS]

This is where one can get really confused. Concerning the first paragraph: Maybe it’s me, but isn’t finding concrete ways to reduce the number of abortions **more ** important than pointing out that Catholics-who-voted-for-someone-other-than-the-Republican-nominee could allegedly be supporting the idea of abortion, an “intrinsic evil”?

You say that abortion is not a single issue. I would argue that some have made it a single issue. So much argument is made about all other “proportionate” issues not equaling the one issue of abortion. How can a one-issue voter (the one issue being abortion) hypothetically vote for a candidate who would run roughshod over all other social and economic and environmental issues just because that candidate was pro-life? Let me add something here as an example. In 2000, I voted for Bush, a move I made solely because he was the “pro-life” candidate. Bush may have had a few “wins” for this stance for which I give him credit BUT where was his “sanctity of life” platform when 4500 of our servicemen and women were killed in Iraq, a war which was based on a pack of lies? And don’t give me numbers like I’ve seen on another post i.e. that voting for Romney this year was OK because he only was in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother, which totaled only 1% of all abortions while Obama was the abortion-on-demand guy! (Still can’t believe someone actually said that.) If anyone wants to play the numbers game, here’s one: If we support a candidate who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming—or global warming, period—shouldn’t we be held accountable for the billions of human lives (the current world population is 7 billion) that will cease to exist or will never exist at all? That doesn’t even address the millions of other life forms on the planet that will die off. So, as much as it is theologically and morally true that “the right-to-life is the right from which all other rights flow”, we as responsible voters cannot ignore realistic concerns for other issues as well.

Since when did global-warning become an article of faith? I thought it was a fact of nature? The sea-levels are rising. The causes are less certain. In general they have been rising since the end of the last ice age. Britain was once connecte dto the continent; now it is separated from it by the English channel. Chesapeake Bay is a flooded river Valley; ditto the lower Hudson River Valley. No doubt than humanity has a large hand in transforming the landscape. Staten Island were and Manhatten covered with huge trees with Henry Hudson first came to the area. Such forests covered the land from the Atlantic to the prairies of Illinois. Until the icesheets receded, those forests had not existed. We have leveled those forests andf the forests that replaced them. Yes, the industrial revolution dirtied the air and poisoned the soil and the waters. At the same time, it transformed human life so that hundreds of millions today live as well as kings and nobles did a few hundred years ago. The left Eden a long time ago, and it was not Eden but the “wilderness,: that the pilgrims came to in the 17th Century. Saving the planet is not the motivation of those who like Bloomberg want to control our lives. It is certainly not the motive of Obama who is living higher on the hog than the queen of England.

 

[estesbob]

This is where one can get really confused. Concerning the first paragraph: Maybe it’s me, but isn’t finding concrete ways to reduce the number of abortions **more ** important than pointing out that Catholics-who-voted-for-someone-other-than-the-Republican-nominee could allegedly be supporting the idea of abortion, an “intrinsic evil”?

You say that abortion is not a single issue. I would argue that some have made it a single issue. So much argument is made about all other “proportionate” issues not equaling the one issue of abortion. How can a one-issue voter (the one issue being abortion) hypothetically vote for a candidate who would run roughshod over all other social and economic and environmental issues just because that candidate was pro-life? Let me add something here as an example. In 2000, I voted for Bush, a move I made solely because he was the “pro-life” candidate. Bush may have had a few “wins” for this stance for which I give him credit BUT where was his “sanctity of life” platform when 4500 of our servicemen and women were killed in Iraq, a war which was based on a pack of lies? And don’t give me numbers like I’ve seen on another post i.e. that voting for Romney this year was OK because he only was in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother, which totaled only 1% of all abortions while Obama was the abortion-on-demand guy! (Still can’t believe someone actually said that.) If anyone wants to play the numbers game, here’s one: If we support a candidate who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming—or global warming, period—shouldn’t we be held accountable for the billions of human lives (the current world population is 7 billion) that will cease to exist or will never exist at all? That doesn’t even address the millions of other life forms on the planet that will die off. So, as much as it is theologically and morally true that “the right-to-life is the right from which all other rights flow”, we as responsible voters cannot ignore realistic concerns for other issues as well.

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it**. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself.** We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.*

Archbishop Charles Chaput

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI

Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz2DFUM5YoQ

 

[wynnejj]

Archbishop Vigano is the Pope’s official representative to the United States. He speaks directly for the Vatican, so American Catholics should pay heed to his observations on our faithfulness to the Magisterium and the Holy See. Does anyone disagree with Archbishop Vigano, particularly regarding his statement that many Catholics are publicly supporting “a major political party” that has “intrinsic evils among its basic principles.”?

There is no question that the Papal Nuncio is speaking for the Vatican when he is speaking in that capacity.

***The Papal Nuncio was speaking at Notre Dame on this occasion as a subject matter expert on the topic of Religious Freedom, Persecution & Martyrdom …

He was free to interject his own opinions of the USA condition as it relates to this subject matter. He was being asked about his viewpoints in light of his understanding of Catholic principles and his observations in the real world. He was not speaking to the opinions of the Pope or his Bishops.***

There is no question in my mind that he is of the opinion that Catholics should walk away from the Democratic platform because of its intrinsic evil and his view that the “social justice cure” argument is bogus. IMO, it was his opinion as a subject matter expert.

 

[estesbob]

There is no question that the Papal Nuncio is speaking for the Vatican when he is speaking in that capacity.

***The Papal Nuncio was speaking at Notre Dame on this occasion as a subject matter expert on the topic of Religious Freedom, Persecution & Martyrdom …

He was free to interject his own opinions of the USA condition as it relates to this subject matter. He was being asked about his viewpoints in light of his understanding of Catholic principles and his observations in the real world. He was not speaking to the opinions of the Pope or his Bishops.***

There is no question in my mind that he is of the opinion that Catholics should walk away from the Democratic platform because of its intrinsic evil and his view that the “social justice cure” argument is bogus. IMO, it was his opinion as a subject matter expert.

And he’s not the only one;

*At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues

Cardinal Burke*

 

[wynnejj]

And he’s not the only one;

*At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues

Cardinal Burke*

We, fair-minded Catholics, are still free to debate the merits of our viewpoints.

The fact is that the Pope & Bishops are ever mindful of the fallibility on opinions of prudential judgement, and it is not their job to force or coerce anybody beyond telling us the unvarnished and complete deposit of revealed truth.

So who’s still up for a good old-fashioned “bicker”?

 

[estesbob]

We, fair-minded Catholics, are still free to debate the merits of our viewpoints.

The fact is that the Pope & Bishops are ever mindful of the fallibility on opinions of prudential judgement, and it is not their job to force or coerce anybody beyond telling us the unvarnished and complete deposit of revealed truth.

So who’s still up for a good old-fashioned “bicker”?

By merits of our viewpoints does that include the “real presence”. The Resurrection? All viewpoints are not equal or are even worthy of consideration.

 

[wynnejj]

By merits of our viewpoints does that include the “real presence”. The Resurrection? All viewpoints are not equal or are even worthy of consideration.

People have involuntary doubt. Should they stew in their own juices? Shall we give it the silent treatment in the same manner that the abortion issue was treated for years at the local level in our diocese & parishes? Shall we let it fester & grow like untreated cancer? If you are asking my opinion, one better square faith with reason if one wants to take up the task of evangelization. I say keep the faith but never fear a good hard look at reason. The truth will out.

 

[Mickey]

There is no group called Obama-Catholics.

Catholics who voted for Obama (and his agenda of intrinsically evil abortion) would be
called Obama-Catholics…or…Catholics for Obama.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Since when is it either/or ? We can find concrete ways to reduce abortions. And we can also vote for the pro-life candidate - which apparently you have reduced to " pointing out that catholics who voted for a non-Republican could be supporting abortion…"

I didn’t say it was an either/or. You did, my friend. One was a “question”; the other, a “distraction.” Your words, not mine. You, as an American citizen, have the right to vote however you want. If you vote for the pro-life person, that’s fine. However, I did not “reduce” your voting preference in any way. What I’m saying is that some voters of your particular preference, including some in this very thread, like to point out “the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” q.v. *Matthew * 7:3 And, if you want to quote me, don’t edit. What I said was “pointing out that Catholics-who-voted-for-someone-other-than-the-Republican-nominee could **allegedly ** be supporting the idea of abortion, an “intrinsic evil.” Cutting out important words is how we got here in the first place.

The difference, Needsmercy, is that leaders of both parties believe the premises upon which Bush sent troops into Iraq - Hillary Clinton among them - (and John Kerry, the 2004 nominee if I understand him correctly - of course he was for it before he was against it or some such). Iraq is not the cut and dry issue that abortion is, Needsmercey. That killing the unborn is wrong is a no-brainer: there is no controversey as there was surrounding the Iraq war.

The difference, ishii, is that Messrs. Bush, Cheney, et al. knew the truth and sent us in anyway. And Iraq is not the cut-and-dried issue that abortion is? Tell that to a mother who lost a child in that war. Do we really want to say that saving the life of one unborn is weighed more heavily than saving the life of one already born? Of course not!

I said that - and I wasn’t the only one. I believe that a president who wants to protect 98% of the unborn from the abortionist’s vacuum is an improvement over the president who voted to keep infanticide legal. Wouldn’t you agree?

I do not agree with **what you said in that post ** and I especially do not agree with it just because more than one person agreed with you. The message I was trying to get through was that we cannot play numbers games in regard to issues of faith. I guess I didn’t convince you. Oh, and BTW, you don’t have to use phrases like “the abortionist’s vacuum” and pull out the photos of aborted fetuses to convince me that abortion is morally wrong. Being one of the Catholic faithful, I already know that. So, for one more time, I am **not ** “pro-abortion” just because I voted for Obama. Why doesn’t anyone want to believe this?

Oh please. Deal with reality. Millions of babies are aborted every year. How many have died from so-called global warming? Let’s deal with the urgent moral question of abortion. Then we can deal with the question of global warming and the pseudo-science that is its basis.

Once again, I feel like I should have held up a placard saying “Sarcasm”. I was making one more statement about trying to play games with numbers concerning abortion by showing you another numbers game for effect. (I did preference it by saying “If anyone wants to play the numbers game, here’s one.”) It must have gotten lost in the translation. For those of you who believe that I am not dealing with reality, I was not—I repeat, I was not–comparing abortion and global warming.

Anyone wanna take a shot at my bottom line? (last sentence of my previous post)

One more thing (a tangential issue). I can’t let this one go by: “global warming and the pseudo-science that is its basis”? Now who’s dealing with unreality? And who in this thread was saying “Babies=posterity”? They are correct, of course, but where will the babies live if we mess up the planet? Just a thought.

 

[Mickey]

I am **not **“pro-abortion” just because I voted for Obama. Why doesn’t anyone want to believe this?

Uh…I’ll take a wild stab at this one.

Because Obama is an advocate and champion of abortion on demand and infanticide…and because he is a huge fan, supporter, and funding advocate for the abortion mill, Planned Parenthood.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Since when did global-warning become an article of faith? I thought it was a fact of nature? The sea-levels are rising. The causes are less certain. In general they have been rising since the end of the last ice age. Britain was once connecte dto the continent; now it is separated from it by the English channel. Chesapeake Bay is a flooded river Valley; ditto the lower Hudson River Valley. No doubt than humanity has a large hand in transforming the landscape. Staten Island were and Manhatten covered with huge trees with Henry Hudson first came to the area. Such forests covered the land from the Atlantic to the prairies of Illinois. Until the icesheets receded, those forests had not existed. We have leveled those forests andf the forests that replaced them. Yes, the industrial revolution dirtied the air and poisoned the soil and the waters. At the same time, it transformed human life so that hundreds of millions today live as well as kings and nobles did a few hundred years ago. The left Eden a long time ago, and it was not Eden but the “wilderness,: that the pilgrims came to in the 17th Century. Saving the planet is not the motivation of those who like Bloomberg want to control our lives. It is certainly not the motive of Obama who is living higher on the hog than the queen of England.

Robby, you are absolutely 100% correct, although if you read some posts, there are those who disagree with science fact. Frankly, I was not enamored with either candidates’ stand on environment al issues. A lot more needs to be addressed and corrected now. But I digress…

 

[Faithdancer]

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it**. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself.*** We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Archbishop Charles Chaput

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict XVI

Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz2DFUM5YoQ

Estesbob I admire your dedication. Unfortunately statements by the bishops, cardinals and the Pope himself seem to have little influence on those who insist that “my will be done.” Did all those Catholics who voted for pro-abortion and pro- same sex “marriage” candidates and legislation really not get the message…or do they just think they know better than the Magisterium? Perhaps a combination of the two factors…

 

[grannymh]

I understand the “division” during the election, etc.

But my humble observation is that the real division of Catholics is over basic Catholic doctrines, which division dates to the 1940’s as far as I can tell. Though it could have started earlier.

 

[NeedsMercy]

The difference, Needsmercy, is that leaders of both parties believe the premises upon which Bush sent troops into Iraq - Hillary Clinton among them - (and John Kerry, the 2004 nominee if I understand him correctly - of course he was for it before he was against it or some such).

I almost missed this. Hey, take a shot at Kerry for his goofy 2004 campaign but he was talking about the war. “He was for it before he was against it” was crazy. But wait a minute…wasn’t the 2012 Republican nominee for abortion before he was against it?

 

[JMJSHJ]

I didn’t say it was an either/or. You did, my friend. One was a “question”; the other, a “distraction.” Your words, not mine. You, as an American citizen, have the right to vote however you want. If you vote for the pro-life person, that’s fine. However, I did not “reduce” your voting preference in any way. What I’m saying is that some voters of your particular preference, including some in this very thread, like to point out “the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” q.v. *Matthew * 7:3 And, if you want to quote me, don’t edit. What I said was “pointing out that Catholics-who-voted-for-someone-other-than-the-Republican-nominee could **allegedly ** be supporting the idea of abortion, an “intrinsic evil.” Cutting out important words is how we got here in the first place.

The difference, ishii, is that Messrs. Bush, Cheney, et al. knew the truth and sent us in anyway. And Iraq is not the cut-and-dried issue that abortion is? Tell that to a mother who lost a child in that war. Do we really want to say that saving the life of one unborn is weighed more heavily than saving the life of one already born? Of course not!

I do not agree with **what you said in that post ** and I especially do not agree with it just because more than one person agreed with you. The message I was trying to get through was that we cannot play numbers games in regard to issues of faith. I guess I didn’t convince you. Oh, and BTW, you don’t have to use phrases like “the abortionist’s vacuum” and pull out the photos of aborted fetuses to convince me that abortion is morally wrong. Being one of the Catholic faithful, I already know that. So, for one more time, I am **not ** “pro-abortion” just because I voted for Obama. Why doesn’t anyone want to believe this?

Once again, I feel like I should have held up a placard saying “Sarcasm”. I was making one more statement about trying to play games with numbers concerning abortion by showing you another numbers game for effect. (I did preference it by saying “If anyone wants to play the numbers game, here’s one.”) It must have gotten lost in the translation. For those of you who believe that I am not dealing with reality, I was not—I repeat, I was not–comparing abortion and global warming.

Anyone wanna take a shot at my bottom line? (last sentence of my previous post)

One more thing (a tangential issue). I can’t let this one go by: “global warming and the pseudo-science that is its basis”? Now who’s dealing with unreality? And who in this thread was saying “Babies=posterity”? They are correct, of course, but where will the babies live if we mess up the planet? Just a thought.

I don’t understand and perhaps I never will but for those Catholics who voted for Obama because they didn’t trust that Romney or that Republicans care about the unborn.

Do you honestly think that voting for the President with his unapologetic abortion voting record is some how something that a serious and sincere pro life Catholic can expect to change?

Bottom line, why didn’t you vote 3rd party?

 

[NeedsMercy]

Estesbob I admire your dedication. Unfortunately statements by the bishops, cardinals and the Pope himself seem to have little influence on those who insist that “my will be done.” Did all those Catholics who voted for pro-abortion and pro- same sex “marriage” candidates and legislation really not get the message…or do they just think they know better than the Magisterium? Perhaps a combination of the two factors…

What part of “Just-because-I-voted-for-Obama-doesn’t-mean-that-I-am-‘pro-abortion’” did you not understand?

 

[NeedsMercy]

I don’t understand and perhaps I never will but for those Catholics who voted for Obama because they didn’t trust that Romney or that Republicans care about the unborn.

Do you honestly think that voting for the President with his unapologetic abortion voting record is some how something that a serious and sincere pro life Catholic can expect to change?

Bottom line, why didn’t you vote 3rd party?

Assuming that your clause “can expect to change” refers to the President’s voting record, then, no, we can’t expect to change something that’s already history.

I did not vote 3rd party because the US Marijuana Party was not on my ballot.

 

[Faithdancer]

What part of “Just-because-I-voted-for-Obama-doesn’t-mean-that-I-am-‘pro-abortion’” did you not understand?

The flawed “logic.”

 

[NeedsMercy]

Uh…I’ll take a wild stab at this one.

Because Obama is an advocate and champion of abortion on demand and infanticide…and because he is a huge fan, supporter, and funding advocate for the abortion mill, Planned Parenthood.

I am not talking about Obama and his stance on abortion. I am pointedly asking you, Mickey, why don’t you believe what I am telling you i.e. that I am definitely not pro-abortion, pro-death or pro-whatever.