Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Rence]

Show me even one member of the magesterium that supports your personal interpretation of proportionate reasons. What greater insight do you have that the Pope or Cardinal Burke or archbishop Chaput? Why cant we find any members of the magesterium who support your view?

Surely you can offer more support to your position that a one line footnote to a letter that dismisses every issue mentioned by Obama catholics as not being proportionate

Show me a document from the magisterium that lists out proportionate reasons, and that lists disproportanate reasons. Cardinal Burke individually, though highly regarded and whose opinion should be considered, does not speak for the whole Church, and neither does Archbishop Chaput. I already quoted the Pope, who did not give a list. If he wanted to dictate the results of our formation of conscience regarding this matter, it would have been a great opportunity for him to add that list to his statement. But he didn’t.

 

[wynnejj]

The insanity defense … I had “proportionate reasons”.

The Holy Communion class analogy is useful in another way.

We know that approximately 1 in 5 pregnancies are aborted according to the Center for Disease Control.

We know that the Catholic Church considers all persons equal in the eyes of God in terms of the human dignity each is to be accorded.

What if society was so appalled by abortion that there were actually ZERO abortions.

In fact the whole of society was totally conformed to Catholic Social Doctrine … well, almost.

There was this one thing where if a first grade Holy Communion kid were to fail their test, they were to be shot. And in fact, 1 in 5 Holy Communion kids were shot.

Is there any “proportionate reason” that one could offer to say that this was a “Roman Catholic” society conforming to Catholic Social Doctrine.

Should that society present itself to receive Holy Communion?

 

[Al_Moritz]

What the GOP does or does not do has no relevance on whether a catholic can vote for a candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand.

That is where we differ.

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.

 

[Mickey]

What we do demand is that you concede that we have legitimate reasons for the choices of conscience that we make, just like you have legitimate reasons for your choices.

You demand? A proper Catholic (or Christian for that matter) could never concede that you have legitimate reasons for voting for a man who champions abortion-on-demand, infanticide, gay unions, and Planned Parenthood.

So far you have not demonstrated that respect of conscience, but accuse everyone of sin who just follows the USCCB guide and Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope.

1. It is not about “respect of conscience”…you voted for a man who champions a source of intrinsic evil that has no equal.
2. You are not following the bishop’s guide or C. Ratzinger…but your own mutated interpretation.

 

[estesbob]

That’s right. Each will answer for their works in this life. This is my answer: The ability of citizens to feed, clothe, obtain healthcare, and house themselves (especially those citizens who are old, young, disabled or sick) is just as important. It really doesn’t matter if you agree or not, because in the end, you’ll vote with your conscience and I will vote for mine.

Ok, let’s start the endless loop again: you don’t think my reasons are proportionate enough. That doesn’t mean I didn’t answer you. That just means you don’t agree with my answer. Denying me won’t change my mind. My answers are still my answers, regardless of whether you agree or not. In the end, does it matter? Nope. Because you will vote with your conscience and I will vote for mine.

Doesnt matter whether they are proportionate enough for me. The church has specifically sated that these reasons are not proportionate. You can choose to ignore that Church on this but that does not make it right.

 

[estesbob]

You demand? A proper Catholic (or Christian for that matter) could never concede that you have legitimate reasons for voting for a man who champions abortion-on-demand, infanticide, gay unions, and Planned Parenthood.

1. It is not about “respect of conscience”…you voted for a man who champions a source of intrinsic evil that has no equal.
2. You are not following the bishop’s guide or C. Ratzinger…but your own mutated interpretation.

Nothing new there. People have been rationalizing supporting evil since eve plucked the apple from the tree. as Archbishop Chaput explained it:

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.**

Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz2DRdsB1fs

 

[Rence]

What the GOP does or does not do has no relevance on whether a catholic can vote for a candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand.

There really is little difference between voting for someone who supports unrestricted abortion on demand and someone who doesn’t much at all about the fact that unrestricted abortion on demand is readily available, and quite legal. Romney made it quite clear that he had no intention of overturning Roe vs. Wade and I don’t believe for a second he would turn it over to the states. Not even for one naive split second.

I don’t believe there is any merit to sacrificing the welfare of already-born citizens by following a pipedream by throwing the vote to a GOP who hasn’t done, and hasn’t promised to do, anything about making abortion illegal, even with exceptions. The only way to stop abortions is to make women not want to seek them. While both candidates promise to help the elderly, young, sick or disabled, and help their able-bodied citizens care for themselves by improving the economy and healthcare system, what’s left is buying into whose plan might do the less damage to accomplishing this goal.

 

[Mickey]

The ability of citizens to feed, clothe, obtain healthcare, and house themselves (especially those citizens who are old, young, disabled or sick) is just as important.

Who says that this is proportionate to the murder of babies?

Ok, let’s start the endless loop again:

There is no loop. You cannot provide a proprtionate reason. End of game.

That doesn’t mean I didn’t answer you.

Yes it does. You are Catholic, right? You need to show a magisterial document that claims your reasons are proportionate to the murder of babies.

In the end, does it matter? Nope.

Then you should leave this thread.

 

[Faithdancer]

Have you asked a first grade first communion class whether or not a practicing Catholic who habitually votes for a pro-choice candidate should present themselves for Holy Communion?

He’s basically saying to go ask a child your childish question about whether it is OK to vote for a one who sanctions the murder of children.

(I’m shaking in my boots to go ask them that question given the forces of indoctrination that may be at work in our school systems. Who knows what 1st graders might say if they’ve been worked on.)

He was serious about the “shoot Congress” analogy saying the the worth of their everyone’s life is exactly equal to the worth of the child in the womb. The “Swiss Guard” joke is simply saying that he is not in the enforcement business.

Let us not reduce his presentation style to distort the substance of his teaching to a joking matter. The analogies that he presented were apt and designed to show how ridiculous are the claims of not interfering with the conscience of citizens on a matter of a policy of murder-on-demand.

I concur completely. To imply that the Cardinal or his questioner are being “silly” trivializes the urgency of the discussion they are having. The video potrays a Q and A session, not a papal enclave. The Cardinal’s style here is personal and intimate, which is certainly calculated to put his audience at ease and encourage dialogue. Brilliant thinker as he is, and having great responsibility within the Vatican (successor of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in not one but two Vatican positions), we must not confuse his informal manner with ‘silliness.’

 

[Rence]

Doesnt matter whether they are proportionate enough for me. The church has specifically sated that these reasons are not proportionate. You can choose to ignore that Church on this but that does not make it right.

The Church most certainly did not state what are proportiate or disproportionate, or the list would be available on the Vatican website.

 

[Rence]

Who says that this is proportionate to the murder of babies?
There is no loop. You cannot provide a proprtionate reason. End of game.
Yes it does. You are Catholic, right? You need to show a magisterial document that claims your reasons are proportionate to the murder of babies.
Then you should leave this thread.

That still leaves us with the fact that you cannot find a magiesterial document that proves me wrong. All you have to backup your claim that I am ‘wrong’ are individual opinions, who though highly regarded, and whose opinion should be considered carefully, do not represent the Church as a whole. You know very well that the Bishops have to speak collectively on matters of faith and morals. In fact, the US Bishops were asked to provide such a list, but they did not. They were asked to add more specific limitations to the Formation of Conscience document, but they did not. That means you, unfortunately, are placing demands on your fellow Catholics that the Pope and the Bishops collectively are not.

 

[estesbob]

There really is little difference between voting for someone who supports unrestricted abortion on demand and someone who doesn’t much at all about the fact that unrestricted abortion on demand is readily available, and quite legal. Romney made it quite clear that he had no intention of overturning Roe vs. Wade and I don’t believe for a second he would turn it over to the states. Not even for one naive split second.

I don’t believe there is any merit to sacrificing the welfare of already-born citizens by following a pipedream by throwing the vote to a GOP who hasn’t done, and hasn’t promised to do, anything about making abortion illegal, even with exceptions. The only way to stop abortions is to make women not want to seek them. While both candidates promise to help the elderly, young, sick or disabled, and help their able-bodied citizens care for themselves by improving the economy and healthcare system, what’s left is buying into whose plan might do the less damage to accomplishing this goal.

The Church disagrees with you. in fact the church says we cant support someone who supports unrestricted abortion on demand unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. Even if one accepted you partisan take on Romney he still would not be considered more pro-abortion than Obama. there smily is no justification for a catholic to have voted for obama. they can clam invincible ignorance but i personally would not want empire my immortal soul based on my personal interoperation of a one line footnote of a document that contradicts everything else i claim

 

[estesbob]

That still leaves us with the fact that you cannot find a magiesterial document that proves me wrong. All you have to backup your claim that I am ‘wrong’ are individual opinions, who though highly regarded, and whose opinion should be considered carefully, do not represent the Church as a whole. You know very well that the Bishops have to speak collectively on matters of faith and morals. In fact, the US Bishops were asked to provide such a list, but they did not. They were asked to add more specific limitations to the Formation of Conscience document, but they did not. That means you, unfortunately, are placing demands on your fellow Catholics that the Pope and the Bishops collectively are not.

The pope, a cardinal and an Archbishop are not members of the Magestrium?

 

[Rence]

The Church disagrees with you. in fact the church says we cant support someone who supports unrestricted abortion on demand unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are. Even if one accepted you partisan take on Romney he still would not be considered more pro-abortion than Obama. there smily is no justification for a catholic to have voted for obama. they can clam invincible ignorance but i personally would not want empire my immortal soul based on my personal interoperation of a one line footnote of a document that contradicts everything else i claim

The Church doesn’t disagree with me. In fact, the US Bishops were asked to provide such a list, but they did not. They were asked to add more specific limitations to the Formation of Conscience document, but they did not. That means you, with all due respect, are placing demands on your fellow Catholics that the Pope and the Bishops collectively are not.

Show me a document from the magisterium that lists out proportionate reasons, and that lists disproportanate reasons. Cardinal Burke individually, though highly regarded and whose opinion should be considered, does not speak for the whole Church, and neither does Archbishop Chaput. I already quoted the Pope, who did not give a list. If he wanted to dictate the results of our formation of conscience regarding this matter, it would have been a great opportunity for him to add that list to his statement. But he didn’t.

 

[JMJSHJ]

That still leaves us with the fact that you cannot find a magiesterial document that proves me wrong. All you have to backup your claim that I am ‘wrong’ are individual opinions, who though highly regarded, and whose opinion should be considered carefully, do not represent the Church as a whole. You know very well that the Bishops have to speak collectively on matters of faith and morals. In fact, the US Bishops were asked to provide such a list, but they did not. They were asked to add more specific limitations to the Formation of Conscience document, but they did not. That means you, unfortunately, are placing demands on your fellow Catholics that the Pope and the Bishops collectively are not.

Try Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical of the Gospel of Life. It shows how evil abortion is and there is no document ever put out by the Vatican that shows that affordable health care is as important as the righ to life.

 

[Rence]

The pope, a cardinal and an Archbishop are not members of the Magestrium?

You know very well that the Bishops have to speak collectively if we are absolutely obligated to comply. They are NOT all in agreement. Collectively, they did NOT provide a list, purposely. They were asked, collectively, to add a list to the Formation of Concience document, and they did not. And the Pope didn’t provide such a list on proportionate vs. disporoportionate reasons at all.

 

[Rence]

Try Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical of the Gospel of Life. It shows how evil abortion is and there is no document ever put out by the Vatican that shows that affordable health care is as important as the righ to life.

Pope John Paul II’s Enclyclical of the Gospel of Life did not list proportionate vs. disproportionate reasons.

 

[Faithdancer]

Cardinal Burke individually, though highly regarded and whose opinion should be considered, does not speak for the whole Church, and neither does Archbishop Chaput.

. So which cardinals and archbishops offer an “opinion” on the matter which contrasts the “opinions” of Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Chaput?

 

[Rence]

. So which cardinals and archbishops offer an “opinion” on the matter which contrasts the “opinions” of Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Chaput?

Collectively they all did, by not providing a list. The Bishops did NOT provide a list, purposely. They were asked, collectively, to add a list to the Formation of Concience document, and they did not. And the Pope didn’t provide such a list on proportionate vs. disporoportionate reasons at all.

 

[Mickey]

In fact, the US Bishops were asked to provide such a list, but they did not.

You know very well that the magisterium tells us that not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. We know that abortion is intrinsically evil. So the burden of proof is upon you to show that your personal rises to the level of the intrinsic evil of abortion. You cannot find such evidence because it is not there. Furthermore, why would the bishops provide a list of issues that rise to the level of the intrinsic evil of abortion…when nothing rises to the level of the intrinsic evil of abortion.

The Holy Communion class can tell you that.* *