Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[seekerz]

Is it your belief that Catholics should ignore the Democratic platform in regard to abortion?

It’s not a question of ignoring it, it’s a question of whether someone can still vote for a Democrat in spite of it, and the answer is a qualified “yes” - the qualification being that there should be proportionate reason for doing so.

Look at it this way: are we ignoring forced abortion when we choose to buy Chinese products? It depends. If the products are the latest model flat screen TVs, one might argue “yes”; if the products are sorely needed emergency medical supplies for which China is the best current manufacturer, one might argue “no”. It goes without saying that any kind of trade specifically meant to prop up that particular policy, would be clearly wrong - regardless of the product.

 

[Mickey]

It’s not a question of ignoring it, it’s a question of whether someone can still vote for a Democrat in spite of it,

The answer is no.

the qualification being that there should be proportionate reason for doing so.

And as we know, there are no proportionate reasons that even come close to the evil of abortion and infanticide…and nothing has been provided here in almost 1000 posts.

 

[Rence]

Show me a document from a Pope that shows that affordable health care and poverty are as serious or proportionate to Abortion? There have been many documents from many Pope’s attesting to the gravity of abortion but I haven’t found any.

Cardinal Burke’s teachings on abortion are more binding on the faithful than any USCCB document.

Show me a document from a Pope that says that the health and welfare of citizens is not proportionate when voting. Cardinal Burke’s teachings are not more binding that the USCCB document, which was developed in unity.

 

[Rence]

It’s not a question of ignoring it, it’s a question of whether someone can still vote for a Democrat in spite of it, and the answer is a qualified “yes” - the qualification being that there should be proportionate reason for doing so. .

Exactly. That’s exactly what 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.]

 

[Rence]

Actually if one really reads the Catechism there are.

*2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life. *

*2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance. *

This is what the Catechism says about the *crime *of abortion and the issues you mentioned. Where does the Catechism talk about the crime of lack of healthcare, clothing, etc? Where does it talk about it being gravely contrary to moral law? It doesn’t. These are importnat issues for sure, but just reading the differences between how these two areas are described in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *shows that one is clearly tantamount to the other.

I’m certainly not saying you should only look at abortion. However, there were other choices this election that wouldn’t have voted for a pro-abortion, pro-HHS mandate and anti-Catholic candidate. You chose to do the latter. Your’e right that my buying your rationalization doesn’t matter. I suspect however that, although your conscience is okay with this decision now, that will change.

What are you even talking about? The quote you cited from the Catechism is no way, shape or form proves that the health and welfare of citizens, especially the very old, young, sick and disabled, are non-essentials up agasint abortion. It in no way says that abortion is the only issue to look at, and the only issue to overshadow everything else.

And as to not saying that one should look only at abortion, I agree. However, everyone will vote with the topic that weighs heavily on their mind. And it’s their right to do so.

 

[Rence]

Is this the endless loop again? By your vote you would support a candidate who, by his every action, has proven he is **anti-life **in his speech and in his legislation. As the pope once said, the culture of death has risen against Christ Himself. It is chilling to me that society (especially Catholics) no longer have any fear of the Lord, and just as bad, would justify it by their subjective mindset that the killing of the unborn is secondary to the needs of the poor.

Yup, the endless loop where one says that the needs of the poor aren’t as important as the unborn…and yup, this is where I disagree. The poor are just as important. It’s okay if you don’t agree, you don’t have to.

 

[RobbyS]

No, you do not have to agree with our opinion of what proportionate reasons are. 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. We respect your conscience and that of other hardliners here – when your choices are the ones that leave you personally in peace with God that’s great. Yet in turn we expect that you and others respect our consciences as well – I personally could never with any good conscience vote GOP, but that’s me, obviously not you. 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.

What exactly do you mean in “good conscience?” Is this the same things as doing some evil out of invincible ignorance? Torgemado tortures a suspect because he is willing to kill the body to save the soul?

 

[JMJSHJ]

Show me a document from a Pope that says that the health and welfare of citizens is not proportionate when voting. Cardinal Burke’s teachings are not more binding that the USCCB document, which was developed in unity.

If there is one thing we can agree on is that you believe that the health and welfare of the born citizens of the USA are as important as the unborn. How do I know this? Because you have constantly brought this up, time and time again. If you didn’t and never mentioned how important you felt this, none of us would know.

Since I have not come across a single document from any Pope or the Vatican about the importance of health and welfare of its citizens. and I have ready many documents attesting to the seriousness of abortion then I can’t really say that the Pope considers this.

 

[RobbyS]

I don’t think there is a theological basis one way or another to believe anything a candidate or party says. That said, the Republican platform does have more enticing language but then so do used car salesmen.

I guess the Republican Party will never appeal to the UK-born Polish Catholic immigrant in me so I will leave it at that. I’m done with the thread.

I hope the Democratic Party appeals to you even less. It is no accident that nihlism has begun a surge during the last four years. I once was a liberal Democrat, but what I hear from them today is very unlike what the party said before 1968.

 

[seekerz]

The answer is no.
And as we know, there are no proportionate reasons that even come close to the evil of abortion and infanticide…and nothing has been provided here in almost 1000 posts.

Please show me a single official Church document (not a single person’s opinion, just to be clear) that gives you or anyone else the right to decide for me what is or is not proportionate.

 

[Lapey]

Please show me a single official Church document (not a single person’s opinion, just to be clear) that gives you or anyone else the right to decide for me what is or is not proportionate.

I don’t even have to list them; you know them, as they have been listed ad nauseam. The issues are listed as intrinsic evils, which according to the documents which I am not listing AGAIN are held at a higher level. Therefore, these are not to be set aside as a lesser evil anytime; i.e. NEVER! To say that a proportionate reason is an issue which the Church has not called an intrinsic evil is flat wrong. There are no proportionate reasons to intrinsic evils.

Got it this time? I’m sure you won’t because it means your democrat party loyalty will have to be switched to the Catholic party.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t even have to list them; you know them, as they have been listed ad nauseam. The issues are listed as intrinsic evils, which according to the documents which I am not listing AGAIN are held at a higher level. Therefore, these are not to be set aside as a lesser evil anytime; i.e. NEVER! To say that a proportionate reason is an issue which the Church has not called an intrinsic evil is flat wrong. There are no proportionate reasons to intrinsic evils.

Got it this time? I’m sure you won’t because it means your democrat party loyalty will have to be switched to the Catholic party.

My question was pretty specific, so your response is a little puzzling to me. I did not ask what a proportionate reason was, but who gets to decide what is proportionate…Anyhow, while we’re on this topic maybe you’d like to clarify why the Church would allow for proportionate reasons if none exist.

 

[Lapey]

My question was pretty specific, so your response is a little puzzling to me. I did not ask what a proportionate reason was, but who gets to decide what is proportionate…Anyhow, while we’re on this topic maybe you’d like to clarify why the Church would allow for proportionate reasons if none exist.

That is what you asked it appears; did I miss that???

The documents show that intrinsic evils cannot be supported. Only is both candidates are in favor of intrinsic evils can a vote for a pro-evil candidate be made, and it cannot be for support onf that evil. The reason which would cause you to vote one or the other would be proportionate reasons.

There are no proportionate reasons to vote for a proven pro-abortion candidate. Many here will ridicule me or call me partisan, I am used of it, but it will not change the truth.

There are many many documents which back this up, but we keep having the footnote of Ratzinger’s '04 document as evidence thrown at us. So I guess I continue to refer back to the body of the documents.

 

[seekerz]

That is what you asked it appears; did I miss that???

The documents show that intrinsic evils cannot be supported. Only is both candidates are in favor of intrinsic evils can a vote for a pro-evil candidate be made, and it cannot be for support onf that evil. The reason which would cause you to vote one or the other would be proportionate reasons.

There are no proportionate reasons to vote for a proven pro-abortion candidate. Many here will ridicule me or call me partisan, I am used of it, but it will not change the truth.

There are many many documents which back this up, but we keep having the footnote of Ratzinger’s '04 document as evidence thrown at us. So I guess I continue to refer back to the body of the documents.

And both candidates were not against overturning RvW, or did I miss something in the campaign? IMHO, Romney said it in as many ways as he could: in his history on the matter, in his campaign’s etch-a-sketch strategy which he validated…It comes down to trust and verify: a personal choice for each one of us. The Church has never commanded that I believe the words of someone whom I personally don’t find credible and - I don’t see it ever doing that because it would amount to violating my conscience.

 

[Lapey]

And both candidates were not against overturning RvW, or did I miss something in the campaign? IMHO, Romney said it in as many ways as he could: in his history on the matter, in his campaign’s etch-a-sketch strategy which he validated…It comes down to trust and verify: a personal choice for each one of us. The Church has never commanded that I believe the words of someone whom I personally don’t find credible and - I don’t see it ever doing that because it would amount to violating my conscience.

Didn’t say anything about voting for Romney, or jack or jill. I think we were talking about proportionate reasons, right???

BTW, this statement by protigal son 1 sound kind of screwy, don’t you think?

“If we can’t force people to help the poor through taxation, how can we force people to be pro life…etc. through legislation? (ProdigalSon1)”

One, there will always be taxation, and yes we will feed the poor in some ways through this taxation, how does this compare to making abortion illegal which I think everyone would agree this would reduce abortions overnight. End abortion? No, but drastically reduce them, yes.

PS. We feed more through charitable donations through the Catholic Church than we do through taxes, furthermore it is voluntary, there is no virtue in paying what is required by government.

I must edit my last statement, this is totally my opinion with nothing to back it up. so I guess you can disreguard it…

 

[wynnejj]

Does this answer your question?

I disagree that the Libertarian Party’s platform is even worse by my standards. At the party platform level, Libertarians have no stance on abortion, whereas Democrats actively protect abortion-on-demand. By my standards, I agree that Libertarians are not my cup of tea, but their platform is not worse than that of the Democratic Party.

 

[seekerz]

Didn’t say anything about voting for Romney, or jack or jill. I think we were talking about proportionate reasons, right???

BTW, this statement by protigal son 1 sound kind of screwy, don’t you think?

“If we can’t force people to help the poor through taxation, how can we force people to be pro life…etc. through legislation? (ProdigalSon1)”

One, there will always be taxation, and yes we will feed the poor in some ways through this taxation, how does this compare to making abortion illegal which I think everyone would agree this would reduce abortions overnight. End abortion? No, but drastically reduce them, yes.

PS. We feed more through charitable donations through the Catholic Church than we do through taxes, furthermore it is voluntary, there is no virtue in paying what is required by government.

There is always virtue in doing the right thing: following the law and paying taxes is one of those things. In addition, if I do it with a willing heart, I fail to see how the fact that paying taxes is mandatory disqualifies me from receiving the spiritual benefits of my generosity. I know of people, for example who decline claiming the charitable-giving tax deduction based on the principle that they don’t want to be repaid for giving. How is there no virtue in submitting a tax return based on the principles of generosity outlined in the Gospel? Can human laws nullify God’s promise to reward what we give in the right spirit?

The sentiment I perceived behind Prodigal Son’s post, and what made me put it in my signature, is not any equivalence between abortion and taxation. Rather, it is the principle that one cannot be selective about which important moral values to impose through law and which to leave up to personal choice. Of course, anything worth doing is better done voluntarily: that is true both for giving and for respecting life - which is why I willingly oppose abortion and accept government’s power and duty to tax. I also challenge your statement regarding how many people can be fed through charity vs taxation, but maybe you have some evidence to back that up?

But back to the matter at hand: Christ already gave us the foolproof way to reduce abortion, even in the absence of laws forbidding it : converting hearts to Him (not simply convincing people to choose life but convincing them to choose Jesus). The early Christians faced greater challenges than us, so the common excuse that this approach does not work fast enough says more about our faith and obedience to the Great Commission than it says about the state of the world.

Does that mean I’m against making abortion illegal? No. Just the same as with taxation, I believe Christians are called to not simply aim for the letter of the law but for the principles of the Gospel. As a matter of fact, I believe that in our present situation, seeking first the Kingdom will cause the rest to fall in line: we have to be Christ in the darkness of this world, in order to bring it to realization of the folly in rejecting His gift of life. This is my firm conviction born out of very close encounters with the practice of abortion.

How else will medical providers who firmly believe that pro-choice is the ‘compassionate’ side be convinced to help enforce laws against it? Where else will they encounter true compassion if not from encountering Christ? Who will bring them to that encounter, if not us? A law, even one as necessary and as just as the prohibition of abortion, is only so many words on paper unless it can be enforced.

 

[1AugustSon7]

You cannot justify voting for someone who facilitates and thereby encourages mass-murder because he promises everyone bread and butter or any other form of security. The Nazis did the exact same thing, except I don’t think that they actually bankrupted Germany in the process. Their economic programs and policies actually worked, which unfortunately made them even more dangerous: and therein lies the problem, because it did not discourage, but rather further encouraged Germans to vote for them, which resulted in the Nazis eventually doing away with democracy altogether, once they felt they had earned the people’s trust by providing them with what soon turned out to be a completely false sense of security.

You wouldn’t today defend anyone voting for the Nazis because the Nazi party promised or even delivered (free) health care and various other benefits; or even if their policies, on the whole, were more likely to improve the country industrially or economically: you wouldn’t, because you know that none of that could possibly excuse the evil they were doing.

I wonder how far Ambraham Lincoln would have gotten if every abolitionist was as easily hoodwinked as most Christian Obama supporters are. I wonder if Obama appreciates that if the South had adopted the same methods he and his party deliberately employs to divide the vote, odds are he wouldn’t be President or, if he was, it would be of only the Northern half of the country.

Oh wait, but to support Lincoln as an abolitionist would have made you a one issue voter! And we’re not one issue voters; worse, to support Lincoln was to effectively risk splitting the country in two, even possibly starting a war, and even a civil war at that! All the more reason not to vote for Lincoln.

Obama’s Democrats won the last election by dividing and conquering. In that they demonstrated political shrewdness; however, that is no consolation for the countless babies being summarily executed right now by mass murderers who have the criminal audacity to arrogate to themselves the title of doctor. We’re Christians. We know better; and when future generations of Christians look back on these times and read the statistics of how many Catholics were found to be aiding and abeting the newest holocaust, well, our successor apologists are going to have a tough time excusing that; but, to be sure, they will be citing the same quotes and documents used by pro-lifers here, and probably blaming the Democrats for being so effectively misleading and deceptive in order to divide the conscientious electorate and so facilitate evil.

 

[Lucky7]

*Originally Posted by Lucky7
Actually if one really reads the Catechism there are.

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

This is what the Catechism says about the crime of abortion and the issues you mentioned. Where does the Catechism talk about the crime of lack of healthcare, clothing, etc? Where does it talk about it being gravely contrary to moral law? It doesn’t. These are importnat issues for sure, but just reading the differences between how these two areas are described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows that one is clearly tantamount to the other.

I’m certainly not saying you should only look at abortion. However, there were other choices this election that wouldn’t have voted for a pro-abortion, pro-HHS mandate and anti-Catholic candidate. You chose to do the latter. Your’e right that my buying your rationalization doesn’t matter. I suspect however that, although your conscience is okay with this decision now, that will change.*

What are you even talking about? The quote you cited from the Catechism is no way, shape or form proves that the health and welfare of citizens, especially the very old, young, sick and disabled, are non-essentials up agasint abortion. It in no way says that abortion is the only issue to look at, and the only issue to overshadow everything else.

And as to not saying that one should look only at abortion, I agree. However, everyone will vote with the topic that weighs heavily on their mind. And it’s their right to do so.

The fact that you don’t “even know what I am talking about” proves to me that you are ignorant of Church teaching. It is also apparent that when provided proof that one issue is given much more weight than the other by THE CHURCH (and yes it does prove it… otherwise the Church would have called your chosen issues crimes and gravely contrary to moral law too), you don’t care. All that matters to you is what YOUR definition of proportionate is. As you said, it is a person’s right to vote on the topic that weighs most heavily on THEIR mind (even if it doesn’t trump weightier issues in the Church’s mind (aka Christ’s mind). You will see what YOU want to see. Carry on. Been there, done that.

 

[Lucky7]

That is what you asked it appears; did I miss that???

The documents show that intrinsic evils cannot be supported. Only is both candidates are in favor of intrinsic evils can a vote for a pro-evil candidate be made, and it cannot be for support onf that evil. The reason which would cause you to vote one or the other would be proportionate reasons.

There are no proportionate reasons to vote for a proven pro-abortion candidate. Many here will ridicule me or call me partisan, I am used of it, but it will not change the truth.

There are many many documents which back this up, but we keep having the footnote of Ratzinger’s '04 document as evidence thrown at us. So I guess I continue to refer back to the body of the documents.

And when issues are shown side by side from the Catechism people won’t see the clear differences.