Papal nuncio: Catholic division undermines religious freedom

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samson01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
The question for Catholics in any election is not how bad abortion is - it is about the candidates’ ability/commitment to do something about it. What is the purpose of any conviction if not to spur action? It’s all about what I judge candidates to be inclined to do, and in this recent election, the preponderance of the evidence showed the candidates both inclined to keep abortion legal.
Click to expand...
THANK YOU!!! 👍👍👍
 
JMJSHJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have you read my post? Unless I’m much mistaken, I did not ask WHAT is proportionate: I asked who decides whether or not proportionate reasons exist - to be clearer still: in a particular race where the choice has to be made between more than one candidate…who gets to say: “there is no proportionate reason for Catholics to vote for Mr/Mrs X in light of their stated abortion stance”?
 
seekerz said:
If I missed it, I apologize, but no - to my knowledge, Lapey did not answer the question: “who decides what is a proportionate reason”. It does not require many words - just indicate the person or entity.
Click to expand...
The Pope and the Bishops, when speaking as a whole, on faith and morals. Individuals do not enjoy this privelidge and responsibility.
 
The word “You” or “Thou” again is ambiguous about whether talking about personal versus shared responsibility. Just as when Our Lord described the Final Judgement in terms of “whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me”, to which the Church has come to reflect means both personally and collectively ever since Vatican II, then one has to question whether the Ten Commandments also have a collective aspect. That is, one must work towards a society that puts each of his commandments as the basis for all law. I think “yes”, else the collective aspect of tending to the basic needs of all makes absolutely no sense if a society is not grounded in the Ten Commandments.
 
Mickey said:
“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
Click to expand...
Yeah, and you quoted it. He said “especially” not “only”.

He said, “respect every person, especially”…he didn’t say only. Which does NOT mean to throw everyone else under the bus because they’re unimportant.
 
Mickey said:
”I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion”
Mother Teresa
Click to expand...
Agreed. We can’t even agree on how to combat it. It’s either MY way or no way for some folks. That kind of attitude will most assuredly divide rather than unify. 🤷
 
seekerz said:
The question for Catholics in any election is not how bad abortion is - it is about the candidates’ ability/commitment to do something about it. What is the purpose of any conviction if not to spur action? It’s all about what I judge candidates to be inclined to do, and in this recent election, the preponderance of the evidence showed the candidates both inclined to keep abortion legal.
Click to expand...
There is the palpable smell of sulphur in this comment. When political candidates are trained forty years that the rock of abortion rights won’t budge because Christian society won’t budge to move it for always those other reasons … well, what’s a political candidate to do but budge on principles. I know that smell, it is the “Essence of Intrinsic Evil”, no doubt.
 
wynnejj said:
There is the palpable smell of sulphur in this comment. When political candidates are trained forty years that the rock of abortion rights won’t budge because Christian society won’t budge to move it for always those other reasons … well, what’s a political candidate to do but budge on principles. I know that smell, it is the “Essence of Intrinsic Evil”, no doubt.
Click to expand...
Oh? The budging wouldn’t have anything to do with misguided personal convictions based on formative experiences and disguised or revealed depending on the political climate?
Romney asked for rebuttal time and said, “I have my own beliefs and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me that passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have committed to the belief that we can believe as we want but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter and you will not see me wavering on that or be a multiple choice.”
Click to expand...
Source
 
_Abyssinia said:
There is no comparison between Romney and Obama on pro life, religious freedom and marriage. You have no evidence Romney would of started a war, but for the sake of conversation economy and war have been said by Bishop Gracida to be lacking in proportionately to vote for a pro abortion candidate, similar to what Archbishop John J Myers has said

greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20121026/GPG010404/310260362/Bishop-urges-vote-against-candidates-who-support-abortion-gay-marriage?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Bishop Ricken said

Agree

mlz

When a Catholics points out to another Catholic that voting for a pro abortion candidate is wrong, they are not doing out of a place hopefully of partisonship of genuinely not wanting hat Catholic to put their soul in jeopardy. They are trying to help Catholics not commit mortal sin
Click to expand...
 
Mickey said:
”I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion”
Mother Teresa
Click to expand...
Rence said:
Agreed. We can’t even agree on how to combat it. It’s either MY way or no way for some folks. That kind of attitude will most assuredly divide rather than unify.
Click to expand...
I can tell you one thing. Mother Teresa would never have condoned a vote for a man (Obama) who is a proven champion of abortion-on-demand, infanticide, and Planned Parenthood.

Contemplate that for a while.
 
Mickey said:
Nice try. Especially means: to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common;

You just crashed and burned your argument. 😉
Click to expand...
“Especially” still doesn’t mean “only”. Nothing crashed and burned my “argument”. You simply don’t agree with me.
 
Mickey said:
“Especially” means: to a** distinctly greater extent** or degree than is common;

Crash and burn.
Click to expand...
And “distinctly greater extent” STILL doesn’t mean only. Still doesn’t mean 'disregard everything else because it just ain’t that important".
 
seekerz said:
Oh? The budging wouldn’t have anything to do with misguided personal convictions based on formative experiences and disguised or revealed depending on the political climate?
Click to expand...
Millions die because of devil’s minions and earthly confederates & dupes - not the scapegoat of major political candidates that reflect society’s will. Good versus bad formative experiences is exactly the good versus bad that we are fighting. “Faithful Catholic Democrats” are all about unintentional(?) pushing bad formative experiences, pushing God out of the public square, bringing free sex and no responsibility - all in the name of pluralism & welfare. Dems are on particularly shaky ground when conjuring the “formative experiences” argument.
 
Rence said:
Still doesn’t mean 'disregard everything else because it just ain’t that important".
Click to expand...
It means that this issue (amongst all other issues) is of distinctly greater importance. I know it must pain you that Pope John Paul II would never have approved of Obama’s morbid stance on life issues.

Obama is the president of the culture of death on many issues…from abortion… to infanticide…to Planned Parenthood…to the mandate of abortifacients.

How very sad that Christians voted for him.

How very sad that Catholics voted for him…because he is attacking Catholic institutions head-on.
 
Mickey said:
I can tell you one thing. Mother Teresa would never have condoned a vote for a man (Obama) who is a proven champion of abortion-on-demand, infanticide, and Planned Parenthood.

Contemplate that for a while.
Click to expand...
Did you have the pleasure of meeting Mother Teresa? How do you know what she thought or what her voting inclinations or party affiliations were? In India, abortion is supposed to be restricted to a particular list of circumstances (meaning that it is pretty much legal) and there was a period of government-mandated forced sterilization.
 
Mickey said:
It means that this issue (amongst all other issues) is of distinctly greater importance.
Click to expand...
That STILL doesn’t mean it’s the only issue, or that it negates all the others. Of course it’s very important. Just not the ONLY important issue that makes all the other issues trivial.
Mickey said:
I know it must pain you that Pope John Paul II would never have approved of Obama’s morbid stance on life issues.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t expect anything different from the Pope. Of course he wouldn’t approve. And it certainly doesn’t pain me. The Pope wouldn’t be the Pope if he approved of Obama’s stance on life issues.
Mickey said:
Obama is the president of the culture of death on many issues…from abortion… to infanticide…to Planned Parenthood…to the mandate of abortifacients.

How very sad that Christians voted for him.

How very sad that Catholics voted for him…because he is attacking Catholic institutions head-on.
Click to expand...
Obama is very liberal, that’s for sure. But his plan for the poor, sick, elderly, disabled and young seem to be less troublesome than Romney’s plans for the poor, sick, elderly, disabled and young. The majority of people believe that Obama’s plans will cause less harm than Romney’s for all the citizens of this country. However, most don’t believe he’s infringing on any religious institutions’ rights. In fact, I think the vast majority would say that he is preventing religious institutions from dictating to the citizens, citzens who don’t hold themselves subject to any particular religious teachings. I think the election would have had a different outcome if more people bought into the notion that their religious rights were being infringed upon.
 
wynnejj said:
Millions die because of devil’s minions and earthly confederates & dupes - not the scapegoat of major political candidates that reflect society’s will. Good versus bad formative experiences is exactly the good versus bad that we are fighting. “Faithful Catholic Democrats” are all about unintentional(?) pushing bad formative experiences, pushing God out of the public square, bringing free sex and no responsibility - all in the name of pluralism & welfare. Dems are on particularly shaky ground when conjuring the “formative experiences” argument.
Click to expand...
Good and evil is not about party lines, but I see we agree on something: if politicians reflect “society’s will” then they are hardly the ones to turn to on abortion. If politicians are not going to do anything about abortion, then why are people sometimes criticized for not supporting the one who mouth the right words against it? That’s kind of puzzling to me…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top