Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Faithdancer]

Collectively they all did, by not providing a list.

 

[Rence]

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.* *

And yet another circle. Actually, the burden is not on me. We have certain absolutes given to us by the Church, such as: artificial birth control is forbidden, Baptism is required, etc. When the Chuch allows us to discern our decisions using a proper formation of conscience, there is no absolute list. There is no absolute list of ‘grave/serious’ reasons to use NFP, though there is a list of things to consider when coming to a decision to use it. Likewise, there is no absolute list of proportionate/disproportionate reasons when voting. Instead, there is a list to consider when voting, and the US Bishops collectively and deliberately did not give a list of proportionate/disproportionate reasons. So the burden is not on me at all. You yourself can’t come up with such a list, so trying to deflect the responsibility on me doesn’t make either one of us wrong/right. It makes us both consider a list provided, in a document provided, to help us form our conscience.

 

[wynnejj]

The proportionate reason that is being offered by the devil is simply …

I will limit the damage done by mothers to their babies and I will aid in providing for mothers to support their babies, but you must denounce the baby as God’s child and accept that it is the sole property of the mother. Hey, it’s no big deal. In most cases, the baby’s brain & pain centers aren’t developed so it isn’t even painful. Just denounce God’s values for human values.

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

 

[Mickey]

And yet another circle.

It seems that you (and a couple others) are the only ones caught in a circle as you desparately attempt to justify a vote for BO.

Actually, the burden is not on me.

It most definitely is on you.

We have certain absolutes given to us by the Church,

Yes. Abortion is intrinsically evil.

So the burden is not on me at all.

Yes it is. The bishops have given you the guidelines. You know how the Church feels about abortion and that there is no equal or greater intrinsic evil.

The Holy Communion class knows this…innately!

You yourself can’t come up with such a list,

I, myself know that there is no list claiming that there is any issue that rises to the level of the intrinsic evil of abortion…that is why there are no “proportionate reasons” to vote for someone if they are the champion of abortion-on-demand.

 

[Rence]

It seems that you (and a couple others) are the only ones caught in a circle as you desparately attempt to justify a vote for BO.
It most definitely is on you.
Yes. Abortion is intrinsically evil.
Yes it is. The bishops have given you the guidelines. You know how the Church feels about abortion and that there is no equal or greater intrinsic evil.

The Holy Communion class knows this…innately!
I, myself know that there is no list claiming that there is any issue that rises to the level of the intrinsic evil of abortion…that is why there are no “proportionate reasons” to vote for someone if they are the champion of abortion-on-demand.

I don’t have to justify my decision, anymore than you do.

Yes, the bishops have given us the guidelines. We all know that. I know how the Church feels about abortion. We all do. Yet, there is no list of proportionate/disproportionate reasons when voting, and we all know that because if there were, it would be as available as any other absolute, right there no the Vatican website. Instead, there is a list provided, by the US Bishops collectively, to help us form our conscience by examining a whole list of important topics…which in turn directs our vote. The Pope himself wouldn’t have mentioned proportionate reasons if there were no proproportionate reasons. And just like we don’t have a list of ‘grave/serious’ reasons to use NFP, and only a list to consider, the same goes or voting.

 

[wynnejj]

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.

From a human perspective, I can understand and embrace what you are saying.

Prudential judgement is the practical application of principle.
Denial of principle destroys all end product of all practices.

There is a principle here that is basically a denunciation of God.
The GOP with all its flaws … shudder … embraces God’s supremacy.
It’s platform recognizes the child in the womb as a child of God with the rights to life.
The Democrat with all it merits … shudder … denies God’s supremacy.
It’s platform recognizes the child in the womb as the property of mankind only.

 

[estesbob]

And yet another circle. Actually, the burden is not on me. We have certain absolutes given to us by the Church, such as: artificial birth control is forbidden, Baptism is required, etc. When the Chuch allows us to discern our decisions using a proper formation of conscience, there is no absolute list. There is no absolute list of ‘grave/serious’ reasons to use NFP, though there is a list of things to consider when coming to a decision to use it. Likewise, there is no absolute list of proportionate/disproportionate reasons when voting. Instead, there is a list to consider when voting, and the US Bishops collectively and deliberately did not give a list of proportionate/disproportionate reasons. So the burden is not on me at all. You yourself can’t come up with such a list, so trying to deflect the responsibility on me doesn’t make either one of us wrong/right. It makes us both consider a list provided, in a document provided, to help us form our conscience.

**
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

Cardinal Burke**

What do you know that burke missed?

 

[Rence]

From a human perspective, I can understand and embrace what you are saying.

Prudential judgement is the practical application of principle.
Denial of principle destroys all end product of all practices.

There is a principle here that is basically a denunciation of God.
The GOP with all its flaws … shudder … embraces God’s supremacy.
It’s platform recognizes the child in the womb as a child of God with the rights to life.
The Democrat with all it merits … shudder … denies God’s supremacy.
It’s platform recognizes the child in the womb as the property of mankind only.

From a human perspective, I can also understand and embrace what you are saying. That doesn’t make either of us right/wrong, good/evil. It means that we can can both discern for ourselves, guided by the documents provided by the Pope and the US Bishops collectively, and come to our own conclusions as to what would be best for the citizens of this country…just as each individual and unique couple does when discerning on using/not using NFP. If we weren’t allowed to come to our own conclusions in this matter, the Church would not be shy about telling us. After all, they’re not shy about the other absolutes. Deciding on our votes is not an absolute. There are many things to consider, per the US Bishops, and we have not been given a blacklist of disproportinate reasons versus proportionate reasons.

 

[Lapey]

You mean the side of the issue that [anonymous poster] was in favor of before he was against it? But seriously, estesbob, which sentence is in “direct rejection of the teachings of the church”? “We are real Catholics”? “We love our faith”? Which sentence? One more question: where did I **say ** that I support abortion? I do not mean “Here’s how I interpret NeedsMercy’s vote.” I want “NeedsMercy says she supports abortion in post #_____.”

Allahu Akbar!

In the statement where you stated you supported Obama.

 

[Rence]

**
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

Cardinal Burke**

What do you know that burke missed?

I know that although Burke is highly regarded, and that his opinions and teachings should be carefully considered, he was not speaking ex cathedra. Nor is his opinion representative of the US Bishops collectively.

I also know that the Pope did not agree with his above statement when the Pope said:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

 

[Mickey]

I don’t have to justify my decision, anymore than you do.

Well…I didn’t see any papal nuncio warnings against my candidate’s party. And I didn’t see any bishop warnings against the man I voted for. So I am thinking that the reason you are on this thread is an arttempt to justify your decision to vote for a man who champions abortion-on-demand, infanticide, gay unions, Planned Parenthood, and the direct attack on the Catholic Church regarding the contraception mandate.

I know how the Church feels about abortion.

Then I suppose you should have thought about that before you voted for the champion of abortion.

Yet, there is no list of proportionate/disproportionate reasons when voting,

Because nothing rises to the level of the intrinsic evil of abortion…we are expected to know that.

 

[Mickey]

"No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,"

Cardinal Burke

Bishop Daniel Jenky warned Catholics who fail to vote to protect the unborn that they are guilty of grave sin, putting their souls in mortal danger. “God is not mocked,” he wrote, “and as the Bible clearly teaches, after this passing instant of life on earth, God’s great mercy in time will give way to God’s perfect judgment in eternity.”

 

[Rence]

Well…I didn’t see any papal nuncio warnings against my candidate’s party. And I didn’t see any bishop warnings against the man I voted for. So I am thinking that the reason you are on this thread is an arttempt to justify your decision to vote for a man who champions abortion-on-demand, infanticide, gay unions, Planned Parenthood, and the direct attack on the Catholic Church regarding the contraception mandate.
Then I suppose you should have thought about that before you voted for the champion of abortion.
Because nothing rises to the level of the intrinsic evil of abortion…we are expected to know that.

I’m not attempting to justify any of my decisions, just getting my thoughts, values and beliefs out there like everyone else Of course, we all will never agree. But I have come to understand some of you all better In the end, that’s all we can do.

And I thought long and hard over the Faithful Citizenship document before voting, and stand by my decision. What we are expected to know was right there in black/white for everyone to read in use to assist them to form their conscience.

 

[wynnejj]

That doesn’t make either of us right/wrong, good/evil. It means that we can can both discern for ourselves, guided by the documents provided by the Pope and the US Bishops collectively, and come to our own conclusions as to what would be best for the citizens of this country…just as each individual and unique couple does when discerning on using/not using NFP.

The Church cannot and must not ever be shy about explaining principles.
The Church cannot and must not ever be bold about explaining practice.
In principle, the Church proves time & again that it is infallible.
In practice, the Church proves time & again that is is very fallible.

Jeremiah 7 that closely resembles the US bishop’s guidelines on voting does not put a proportion on the social justice issues of its time other than to spend a little extra effort to elaborate on adopting pagan values and the slaughter of the innocents.

As in all things good and evil, we will be judged on how we accept or ignore, apply or reject, God’s values over our human values, as best we understand them.

 

[estesbob]

I know that although Burke is highly regarded, and that his opinions and teachings should be carefully considered, he was not speaking ex cathedra. Nor is his opinion representative of the US Bishops collectively.

I also know that the Pope did not agree with his above statement when the Pope said:

Again you ignore every member of the magesterium who disagree with you and depend of your flawed interpretation of a one line footnote to a letter that contradicts your position. Surely you can find at least one member of the magesterium that mentions the reasons you claim are proportionate?

 

[Lapey]

The Pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted

in the presence of proportionate reasons.]"

You repeatedly use this footnote to protect your erroneous judgment and ill-formed conscience. This paragraph used the way you use it is in direct opposition to many other documents. How can this be? It cannot, therefore your OPINION of this footnote is wrong.

This is where the division is coming from which the Papal nuncio speaks.

Please, you have been asked many, many times to produce for us from Church documents these “proportionate reasons” equal to abortion, euthanasia, same sex “unions”, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning. We’re still waiting.

 

[Lapey]

It is astounding how you continue to post that any reasons Al or I come up with (or anyone else for that matter) are not proportionate enough for you. It’s that endless loop thing. You and some others demand proportionate reasons, and others provide them, and the loop continues simply because you don’t like the answers provided to the questions. Thank God we don’t need anyone’s permission to vote with our conscience. Which means, it really doesn’t matter if you like the answers or not because we all (you, me, Al, everyone) will do what we are called to do despite what anyone else thinks.

Just because you say something is “proportionate” doesn’t’
t mean it is in fact proportionate. It’s not your choice nor is it mine. This is in the hands of the Magisterium of the Church who has stated that there are no proportionate reasons to support the killing of innocent life and this must always be opposed. Do you need me to cite the documents again???

 

[Faithdancer]

Not to muddy the waters more than they already are, but this sounds just like what pro-choice Catholics would say…I am politically pro-choice but personally pro-life. And no matter how they want to rationalize it, they are supporting the “right” for someone else to end the life of the child in their womb. They won’t kill their own baby, but it’s okay if someone else kills theirs.

Exactly. Voting is an action, and in moral theological terms voting pro-choice, which one is doing by voting for a pro-choice candidate, cannot be explained away by saying one’s intention was something else, or by circumstance such as “even though this candidate will support abortion, he will do other things that are good.”

 

[JMJSHJ]

I know that although Burke is highly regarded, and that his opinions and teachings should be carefully considered, he was not speaking ex cathedra. Nor is his opinion representative of the US Bishops collectively.

I also know that the Pope did not agree with his above statement when the Pope said:

Actually Cardinal Burke outranks the US Bishops as he is a Vatican Cardinal and Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.

 

[Tigg]

There is a principle here that is basically a denunciation of God.

The GOP with all its flaws … shudder … embraces God’s supremacy.
It’s platform recognizes the child in the womb as a child of God with the rights to life.
The Democrat with all it merits … shudder … denies God’s supremacy.
It’s platform recognizes the child in the womb as the property of mankind only.

I really like this! :newidea:

Without all the rationalization coming from those who will not see, it is simply usurpation of the Sovereign!