Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

[Mickey]

I remain utterly perplexed as to how any Christian could vote for a man who says this:

"I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby."
Barack Obama

 

[Mickey]

“That is the dignity of America, the reason she exists, the condition of her survival, yes, the ultimate test of her greatness: to respect every human person, especially the weak and most defenseless ones, those as yet unborn.”
Pope John Paul II

 

[seekerz]

And I never will know you.
No. It bothers me that so many Christians knowingly cast a vote of support for a man that is zealous for abortion-on-demand, infanticide, gay unions, Planned Parenthood, and the HHS mandate.

Not to mention the attempt to remove God from the party platform…with a resounding chorus of boos when God was reinstated.

Nobody removes or reinstalls God. That generic ‘god’ which apparently we’re all supposed to believe in, bears no relationship that I’m aware of, to the real One. You know, the One we actually listen to, not the accessorized one whom we imagine to be at our beck and call, approving our every whim and fancy.

 

[Mickey]

”I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion”
Mother Teresa

 

[seekerz]

It has everything to do with understanding the importance the Magisterium has placed on certain actions. The “WHO” is the Magisterium. Proportionate reasons the way you understand it is a laity formed term, or meaning thereof. The Magisterium has declared differently many times, which all have been posted here, but to no avail. You and a few here know better than the Church’s leaders.

Thank you for naming the “who”. Now where has the Magisterium declared that there are no proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Or, if you want to be more specific, where has it commented on the presence or absence of proportionate reasons to vote for Obama?

 

[Mickey]

Nobody removes or reinstalls God.

Spinning again, eh?

Your party tried to remove the mere mention of the name of God from the party paltform.

But hey, I’ll humor you. If they were talking about this alien generic god…and then put this idol back into the paltform…why did you vote for the man and his platform (this would include abortion, infanticide, Planned Parenthood, HHS mandate, gay unions, and the generic alien god).

 

[seekerz]

The magisterium has, many times in many documents. We have posted them many times; you twist them. You owe me no apology for opposition to their teaching.

And we are called partisan…you and a few here will twist even the Ten Commandments to justify a democrat vote. What is the cause of the division? I think this is obvious, your mindset and Rence, Al, and many more here that will see us as simple minded republican hacks, when we spread what Church teachings and leaders proclaim. You won’t listen to us, the magisterium or anyone who dares to go against your sacred cow, the democrat party.

Let me ask you this question, since you won’t accept the answer given to yours repeatedly, if every bishop of the entire Church, up to and including the Pope would have made a statement condemning Obama and direct the American faithful to vote Romney; would you have left the Church, or just simply disobeyed their direction?

I could no more leave the Church than I could leave myself. As for twisting words, I’m a straightforward person, so I’m not sure how you come up with that assessment.

For the rest, we could keep going ad infinitum and it wouldn’t change a thing. The Catholic Church has never been devoid of debate and differing views, so I think if anyone is expecting all of us to assess 2 secular political candidates in the same way, that’s a rather lofty expectation.

 

[seekerz]

I didn’t say there was no virtue in doing the right thing. Laws must be followed, taxes must be paid, to pay taxes willingly is not the virtue of generosity. Giving personally voluntarily is.

As far as changing hearts, do you think my words mean that I would make abortion illegal then stop preaching about the horrors of abortion? You do not have much confidence in me or anyone else here, or is it simply a disdain for people of differing views? In the way you twist peoples words, I think the latter.

l’m not sure why you seem to take my words as a personal commentary on you. We have had this discussion in the past: generally, I discuss issues, not individual posters’ personal characteristics.

In my Catholic education, I was part of a debate team and debate is NOT about disagreeing with another person or team but with particular ideas they put forward. Disagreeing with someone else’s ideas does not necessarily equate to disdain or any particular sort of personal impression. I sometimes disagree with the ideas of those closest to me - does that mean I think less if them?

I don’t make points to irritate or offend you - I make them because they represent what I truly believe. Your part is to present what you believe or the reasons you do not accept what I believe. This is NOT about how I feel toward you and it shouldn’t be about how you feel about me. We are exchanging ideas - not emotions.

 

[Lapey]

Thank you for naming the “who”. Now where has the Magisterium declared that there are no proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Or, if you want to be more specific, where has it commented on the presence or absence of proportionate reasons to vote for Obama?

We have…I’m not going to list them again for you or Al to site the footnote again…I think I’m done. God bless you, and may He bring you answers.

 

[seekerz]

We have…I’m not going to list them again for you or Al to site the footnote again…I think I’m done. God bless you, and may He bring you answers.

God bless you too.

 

[seekerz]

Spinning again, eh?

Your party tried to remove the mere mention of the name of God from the party paltform.

But hey, I’ll humor you. If they were talking about this alien generic god…and then put this idol back into the paltform…why did you vote for the man and his platform (this would include abortion, infanticide, Planned Parenthood, HHS mandate, gay unions, and the generic alien god).

Generic alien god in this past campaign? Hmm…I think you might be on to something here.

 

[Mickey]

Hmm…I think you might be on to something here.

Actually, I think it is you who are on to something.

 

[fix]

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.

If it is that subjective then anything goes. That cannot be the standard.

 

[seekerz]

If it is that subjective then anything goes. That cannot be the standard.

If what is “that subjective”. I was asking, not making an assertion.

 

[fix]

If what is “that subjective”. I was asking, not making an assertion.

If one’s erroneous interpretation of how the Church defines proportionate is the standard then anything goes.

The Church has a moral theology tradition. She defines these issues. We can assent to them or reject. We cannot reinvent them.

So, if one claims proportionate means whatever they decide it means then there is no standard at all.

 

[seekerz]

If one’s erroneous interpretation of how the Church defines proportionate is the standard then anything goes.

The Church has a moral theology tradition. She defines these issues. We can assent to them or reject. We cannot reinvent them.

So, if one claims proportionate means whatever they decide it means then there is no standard at all.

Is that claim made in my post? Note the question marks, please.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Is that claim made in my post? Note the question marks, please.

Have you read this thread in completion? Your question about what is proportionate has been discussed ad nauseaum in this thread with Rence and Al Moritz. They include statements from very high ranking Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. Whether you choose to follow what they say is up to you but they are contained in this thread.

 

[wynnejj]

It seems to me that I’d be just as hard pressed to find an exact definition of the phrase “intrinsic evil” as it is to find an exact definition of the phrase “proportionate reason”. The Church cites several examples in the CCC, but as that document is not meant to be thoroughly comprehensive (as I think it says in its preliminary articles), does one infer that those items characterized by the attribute “intrinsic evil” represents the comprehensive definition. That is, “Intrinsic Evil” means this comprehensive list of sins to be added as Revealed Truth unfolds. The word “intrinsic” shows no weight, no sense of proportionality. Intrinsic means that it is of its nature. So what is “evil”? Does it mean simply things that go against the dignity of persons, whether God, His Angels & Saints, and Man. If that is the case, the one of my pet peeves - the act of “snubbing” a person who you don’t know when offered a courteous “hello” when repeated often - rises to the level of an “intrinsic evil”. Both “proportionate reason” and “intrinsic evil” seem to be difficult to ascribe an exact definition. (BTW, nothing I say here is to be construed as nullifying my assertion that Obama supporters are out of their “proportionate reason” minds!)

 

[Rence]

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.

Yes, you have many documents attesting to the seriousness of abortion…because it’s a serious topic worthy of heavy consideration. However, it’s not the one and only topic that overshadows all the others.

The notion that abortion is the one and only topic that overshadows all the others is a notion taught by individuals who don’t represent the infallible teachings of the Church unless they were included in ‘the whole’. 1)The Pope, and 2) the Bishops when speaking all together, are infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals. Anything else, though highly regarded and should be taken seriously, are opinions, not infallible teachings.

And the Bishops, as a whole, as a group, listed topics to carefully consider when voting, and as a whole, as a group, teach that no one issue should make one ignore all the other topics they listed. And the Pope said that there were proportionate reasons…so they do exist. And he did not list what was proportionate vs. disproportionate. The individuals who are making such a list are not speaking on behalf of the Church as the Bishops as a whole, and as the Pope does. Though I do concede their opinion is worthy of serious consideration. That doesn’t make it Church law though. If you follow it like Church law, that’s okay. It’s your choice. But that doesn’t make you or me right or wrong. It just make us different.

 

[Rence]

The fact that you don’t “even know what I am talking about” proves to me that you are ignorant of Church teaching.

OR, it rather proves I’m not

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.

Sorry, but it is not apparent by your qote that one issue is given much more weight by the Church when voting. There is no section that says there is one issue that is given much more weight than any other, such that it overshadows and renders all the others meaningless and insignificant. If that were true, the Pope would not have said there were proportionate reasons. And with all due respect, all you care about is YOUR definition of proportionate. But then, of course you do. That’s why we all have our own vote.